TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc


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


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 22 2013: "I think therefore I am." Anything else can always be assumed an illusion.

    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 ≠.
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2013: Check out this conversation I think you will like it

    • Feb 24 2013: Illusions fool the brain in to believing that, what is not there, is there.
      • Feb 24 2013: Ummm... Yeah. That's assumed common knowledge... So... Thanks? I don't really see what u mean to accomplish by posting that. I mean, I could find that out on Dictionary.com...
        • Feb 24 2013: I was just questioning your inference that "I think therefore I am" is not an illusion as well.
          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.
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: Allan sorry proof is not in numbers because I can show proof that numbers are theory/assumptions/and more like philosophy. Now binary that's a different animal

          Check out this ted convo
      • Feb 24 2013: "I think therefore I am" is the only thing that remains when you strip all possibly illusions.

        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?
        • Feb 24 2013: Thank you for saving me time.
        • Feb 26 2013: The producer of the Illusion, this one who is experiencing the Illusion and and the Illusion itself ARE ONE.
          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.
      • Feb 26 2013: Hi, Allan !
        Is there ANY possibility to get out of the illusion ?
        • Feb 26 2013: Possibly not ... but if the "illusions" lead to to "fitness" enhancing behaviors, it may not matter????

          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.
      • Feb 26 2013: Re:" If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need."
        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 !
    • thumb
      Feb 26 2013: Why do you think that thinking is not an illusion?

      It seems to me that "I think" needs to be stripped also. What remains is "I AM".
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: Which correlates to one
      • Mar 1 2013: Ow boy,

        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...
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: Yes, I've read what Descartes said and I've read what Hume wrote about what Descartes said.
      • Mar 1 2013: You mean the Hume that sais: "You can't really say that one leads to the other as cause and effect are not clear"?
        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.
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: Read "Criticisms" section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

          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.
      • thumb
        Mar 2 2013: According to Christian doctrine only God can rightfully be called "I Am." It is one of his names. (Exodus 3:14 KJV).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.