TED Conversations

Kevin Brian Carroll

This conversation is closed.

If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed"

"Perception is Reality"

The first statement - taken completely out of context from its original application, as part of Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics, in reference to energy usage within a closed mechanical system - has been used to argue for the notion that infinite physical existence is not a logical aberration, and the second statement is an irresponsible colloquialism that's been elevated to axiomatic status and is now used to deny the fact of ramification, progressive development, time, and reality itself as being real.

And this is regularly occurring among people whose job it is to translate reality indications for the rest of us.

The implications, as these kinds of blatant errors are propagated throughout all levels of modern culture should be obvious, but it seems as if the insidious effect of these sorts of fundamental level errors are actually blunting the obviousness of these implications as well as promoting additional errors that would normally not be allowed to persist in an intellectual atmosphere that's more responsible and less casual.

If reality itself can't be, or won't be, successfully defended, then what chance do we have as a thinking species? It seems as if, as our advancing technologies debunk our wisdom inaccuracies, we respond by dismissing the notion that accuracy exists at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our traditional truths concerning reality, so we declare reality to be whatever we perceive it to be. And the crowd goes wild with approval.

Reality exists, and it's not malleable per individual perception. Nothing exists that did not first come into existence. Eternal existence is not the same as infinite presence. There is a foundation that allows for the existence of all that exists, and that foundation can be determined. Someone needs to make a stand on behalf of reality, or we're not going to survive as the only intellectual species on this planet. The foolishness has to stop.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 4 2012: I am not even certain I understand the entirety of this conversation. But, there is an element to it that I grasp and I am not sure has been covered. We currently do suffer at a civilizational level from the Thomas theorem's natural outcome. If that which is believed to be true is true in its consequences then the reality that many humans cannot even agree on the most basic scientific facts and instead cling to outdated and disproven colloquial mythologies we will fail to move forward in any meaningful manner to address the crises facing our species.
    • thumb
      Mar 6 2012: It's become even more of a concern because at a visceral level, we know that the outdated and disproven mythologies are wrong, and it actually causes many people to double-down on those myths as a psychological defense mechanism. Imagine the unconscious stress that those brains are dealing with every minute of every day. The human brain is rigidly logical, even if the human mind gives logic the bird in utter contempt of its perceived restrictions. And what the brain suffers, the mind ultimately suffers as well - even if it works to protect itself via cognitive dissonance.

      There are highly successful professional people who absolutely insist that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaur bones exist only to lead the faithless astray. To me, that's almost as terrifying as it is astounding. These are people that make enormous decisions for millions of people, and beneath those judgment calls is a patchwork of fairy tales and bald-faced lies that their brains know full well are fairy tales and bald-faced lies. That battle between mind and brain must be exhausting, and yet they also - and honestly - believe that if they don't keep that war raging within their psyche, there's an ethereal monster that will take everything they love away from them, and ultimately torture them forever.

      And they make enormous decisions for millions of people on a regular basis. In fact, our culture has decided that these are the only people we trust with these enormous decisions. And one wonders why modern life is so aggressively schizoid.
      • thumb
        Mar 7 2012: Kevin, It is somewhat alarming at how you judge people of faith/religion.
        Don't you understand that the reason they need to believe their 'mythologies' is because it fulfills a need and gives structure to their universe that logic DOES NOT! That cognitive dissonance exists in the logic because it is incongruent with experience. Like I said, corporeal reality is never enough. Most of the time they have tried it and found it wanting.

        "The human brain is rigidly logical, even if the human mind gives logic the bird in utter contempt of its perceived restrictions."

        You may be describing your experience and how your brain works but many people will say we are spiritual beings bound to a logical world. They are describing their experience and how their brain works.

        You cannot go around ordering everybody to think the same. Our brains are so much more than logic.
        Your just going to be disappointed that not everybody thinks like you do.
        • Mar 7 2012: Linda, I would say that there is a major difference between having a strong sense of sprituality and believing a "religion". Spirituality is the humbling sense that there are many things about the universe which we do not know and possibly cannot know. It is the sense that there is something much larger to this universe that we can not readily perceive but to which is helps us as individuals if we are open to it. Religion is a series of fantastical ideas made up by humans and passed on to later humans as irrefutable fact handed down by a god made in their own narrow image. The god of the old testament and the god of the q'ran are petty, jealous, power hungry, spiteful, people. Essentially, they are remarkably human. It is perhaps my own vanity that insists that if I were to worship some greater being I would want it to be tremendously better at being human than I can be. If i can be a better human than my god can be, I need a new god.

          It reminds me of Ghandi. He was once challenged to read the bible (I do not know which version). Afer he did as he was asked he said, "I like your Jesus. I do not like your christians, they are not much like your Jesus."

          There is a proven part of our brain which seeks to surpass our logical physical sense of our selves. But, I suspect what it is after is so much more than anything that is offered in most organized religions.
      • thumb
        Mar 8 2012: I agree Sharon 100%. But I also know many many people that need the structure that religion provides. It is still around for very good reasons. Those ancient texts still provide comfort. And people who are seeking to surpass that logical physical self and seek meaning feel safe when the journey is structured for them.

        Not everyone finds logic reasonable. I know that may be weird sounding but it is true. It is not a psychological defense mechanism. They understand the world from that part of their brain.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: The need to transcend reality is one thing. Teaching people that reality is not definitive is something else entirely. Religionists can believe what they wish and I have no opinion whatsoever concerning what they believe. My issue is not with religion. I have a problem with "theoretical physicists" being presented as scientists, and scientific claims being based on imaginary premises. The "10th dimension" is not a proven fact of reality, and yet entire physics theories are based on inane assertions of that ilk. Do a quick Google search of that phrase and you'll find all kinds of junk science being eagerly embraced by devotees of impossible plausibilities and blasting anyone who suggests that reality doesn't bow to their imaginations.

          I'm not attacking religion or imagination. My concern is about reality staples. Time. Causation. Ramification. Contextual juxtaposition. It almost seems like you and I are arguing over different conversations than the one we're actually having.

          Logic isn't reasonable. It's not debatable. It's primordial. It sits at the base of everything that exists and provides the necessary consistency that allows for progressive development of physical existence. That consistency is much more important than reasonableness. Especially since what's reasonable is a judgment call.
      • thumb
        Mar 8 2012: SEE! I knew you could converse! I get it I really do. I understand the whole "People can we please all be on the same page" desire. Holy cats do I understand it. I just had a talk today with my son about the Quasi science surrounding the whole 2012 end of the world stuff. It's not even up to quasi science it is just BS.

        I also understand that logic is primordial but its not the only thing. So is fight or flight and feelings have a lot to do with what we are discussing. You will never be able to tell someone fear is not real. You can provide a different experience but you will never convince them by logic. There are a couple of other primordial human experiences.

        But even with understanding all of the above I still think we cannot say this is real and this is not. And truly truly it is because we are a thinking being.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: I think we're approaching agreement here. :~D

          Human beings are capable of subjectivity and that's the brilliance of the human mind. I write songs and poetry and short stories, and I often live for long stretches within the confines of my own imagination as I'm working on a project. And the things I create are real. Very real. They do exist, and to be very accurate about the physical nature of ideas - like all information that exists, they are the only form of physical existence that persists after the instant of occurrence (the specific instant that we call "now"). Generated information (from a brain) is a form of information that isn't completely passive, but like residual information, it does persist indefinitely once it has been brought into existence.

          Yes, my notions are somewhat different than many traditional notions, but they are based on rock solid fundamentals, as are all things that actually exist as physical. Logic bases everything, but you're right, it's not everything. The human mind transcends the structure that logic maintains, and that's the miracle of the human being. It, alone, is capable of leaving the structure behind and experiencing its own interpretation of what's real.

          That said, its interpretation is only a perceived experience. It doesn't affect the actual nature of objective reality. Nothing can actually do that. That reality is the result of too much that's already occurred. The capacity to unravel all that cause and effect just doesn't exist.
      • Mar 8 2012: "The "10th dimension" is not a proven fact of reality, and yet entire physics theories are based on inane assertions of that ilk. Do a quick Google search of that phrase and you'll find all kinds of junk science being eagerly embraced by devotees of impossible plausibilities and blasting anyone who suggests that reality doesn't bow to their imaginations."

        Can you really argue with Stephen Hawking? He got 200+ IQ. You are bright, no doubt about it, but he is like a human computer. And the collective force of scientists can quite easily out weight you and your arguments, not only with peer number, but also because they don't see any basis for your statements.

        "It [logic] sits at the base of everything that exists and provides the necessary consistency that allows for progressive development of physical existence."
        Do you even know what logic is? I'll cite: "The study of the principles of reasoning", and then, what is reasoning? I'll cite again: "Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments." and "Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation." So what you are talking about is starting to sound a lot like "there is this intelligent mind behind everything", with the difference that you don't take dogmas for facts, which is an important difference between you and creationists.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: Stephen Hawkings hasn't and can't prove the physical existence of the "10th dimension". I'm not sure what his IQ has to do with whether that assertion can be proven or not.

          The impact of logic on reality is too well established for us to actually be debating it as a reasonable controversy. Seriously. Math is the study of Set Logic. There are entire industries that base their capacity to survive as products and services providers on math and the consistency that Set Logic provides. Your computer's mechanical and software structure is based on Boolean Logic. If not for logic, most of what you take for granted as being concrete and dependable wouldn't be possible.

          Humans exploit the dependability and consistency of logic to accomplish technological feats of amazing proportions. Reason is valuable, but logic is primordial. It's how default operates in the physical world. Logic isn't intelligent. It's the difference between progressive development moving in one of two directions when it hits a split in the road (so to speak). Precedence (in the form of residual information) indicates which direction was successful and which direction wasn't the last time development came through, and logic is the default "yes" that is imposed by the existential imperative "Survival" when the A/B choice is presented.

          Physicists know this. It's 1st year stuff. We know that this process exists because it's right there in front of us. We've even mimicked it with our digital electronics. AND and OR gates. Nothing more than replicating the basics f progressive development.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2012: By the way, Stephen Hawking's IQ is only 160. Not 200+. It took less than 30 seconds with Google to determine this to be true. Just a heads up for future debate exchanges. Don't offer facts that can be debunked quickly and definitively if you want to succeed in defending your larger points. Most debaters will eviscerate your credibility by targeting careless assertions like that.
      • Mar 8 2012: Hm... Well, I guess that depends on if you think of mathematical formulas as evidence. e=mc^2 didn't start of with physical evidence behind it, but after testing it in reality we attained nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

        You may say that we had fire long before that, but to be completely honest, we thought that we knew how fire was created, but a new theory came along and we accepted the new, improved explanation of why burning wood gives of heat. And now we're starting to understand how matter can turn in to heat waves. S. Hawking obviously can't provide any physical evidence *giggle*, but somehow he managed to stop ALS from killing him, making him the very incarnation of subjective reality in to this corporeal reality that you are talking about, with the Abstract Thought as his tool. He didn't want to die because of his work, so he simply decided not to. Most people in his situation would probably be tempted to give in to the suffering and simply give up, so that he isn't dead yet really can be seen as miraculous. I mean, is it placebo? If we say yes, maybe we should pay more respect to it and start investigating it for real, because somehow peoples subjective reality affects the corporeal reality (good term btw!).

        Defining details isn't really my cup of tea, but if we're splitting hairs, does Hawkings fit in to the model of either A or B? A) He has a ALS in which he should die only a few days days after it made him paralyzed, or B) He doesn't have a disease and therefore can live.

        Don't question truth when it's right up your nose, taunting you. He is a walking dead by standard biology and medicine, yet he lives. If we play A and B on this one, which one is true? Logic would like to say that A is more true, because he's an error according to logic, but really now? How can someones will to live be an error in logic? Maybe logic isn't fundamental after all, because it still can't explain what we are feeling, and how feelings can distort the corporeal reality.
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2012: That still doesn't say anything about the claim that there is a physical 10th dimension. I'm glad he's still alive, but what's that got to do with anyone's claim that a math formula can provide verification of the physical existence of a 10th dimension?

          Science is about the verification of what is real and consistently dependable. I realize that science is a dog that is forever chasing a car, but even that dog doesn't chase what has no indication of existence - or, at least it never used to chase such things. Now days, there are physicists making absurd claims on the History Channel and Discovery with absolutely nothing at all behind what they're claiming, and other physicists building their claims upon the "foundations" being "built" by those fantastic assertions. Both "scientists" are chasing the money that comes from providing scientific entertainment to reality TV junkies who favor more technically oriented fare over the human drama stuff that litters the rest of cable and broadcast TV. Hell, nothing else is being chased down, that much is pretty obvious.

          Logic is primordial. We humans are an epitome expression of physical development. We're capable of subjective experience, so it's kind of useless to gauge the authority of logic within the structure of physical reality by way of its impact on what we're capable of imagining to be real. The human mind is an existential game changer, but only in the senses of its freedom to experience subjectivity. It can't change the game for the rest of reality. It exists within the confines of reality. It's real, and therefore just a part of reality. Logic provides the structure that is reality. The human mind can go nuts within that structure, but it can't affect that structure.
      • thumb
        Mar 9 2012: Kevin, this is in reply to your comment that starts 'I think we're approaching agreement here.' The reply button sent me here.

        Scientists for the most part understand objective reality. I am personally a big fan. But perception is a bugger and needs to be addressed. For instance, take an object.

        The mathematician says: look this is a dodecahedron, it is composed of 12 sides divisible by...

        The geologist says about the same object: look this is a fine example of quartz crystal. It is dated approximately...

        The chemist says: look this is a fine example of the combination of silicon and oxygen...

        The cosmologist says: look this is a model of the universe. It explains the cosmic microwave background...

        My son-in-law says: look you found the missing piece to my dungeons and dragon set! Where did you...

        All about the same object. All claiming objective reality. All of them are right.

        I know the analogy is somewhat basic but the same statements arise in all sciences. Even within the disciplines themselves.

        That is why as scientists, we not only have to establish our philosophical basis but also our perspective. Objective reality cannot be prescribed. It would limit everything. Even the friend who would tell me to put it back under the couch because bad things began to happen ever since it was found... (being human I would probably give it a try;)
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2012: Perception and translation of that perception is one thing, but reality anchors exist regardless of what's being perceived and translated as having been perceived.

          This is about the linear nature of cause/effect, the permanence of ramification, the primordial nature of logic as a progressive development structural enforcer, the true impact of Set Logic within the relative state of being, Time as a reality staple with the relative being state, survival as the primordial existential imperative, and their dominance within the physical existential confine that we refer to as Reality.

          Nothing is limited. These anchors allow progressive development to exist and succeed. If these basic tenets were not concrete and dependable, the limitations would be insurmountable. Chaos can only exist in the interpreted perception of an observation that has inaccurately judged the scale required to view a selected whole as the whole that it truly is. Once properly viewed, all that exists as a defined whole displays order and relative symmetry, with all apparent chaos revealed as just the complexity that exists within the symmetrical whole. This is the nature of reality and why reality exists and persists.

          This fact is on display at all levels and scales of reality. One or two anomalous indications do not and cannot negate the entire balanced structure that persist. The more plausible explanation for such anomalies is that the established view needs to be broadened that much more to include that anomalous indication's balanced presence with an even larger symmetrical whole than was initially envisioned. After all, an established scale of perspective is much more subjective than the concept of a presence of physical symmetry within an existential whole. The survival of the whole is dependent on physical symmetry, not on the chosen perspective that one uses to perceive it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.