There is no way to prove that you are not insane, or for that mater that everyone else is not insane. Problem being is that it is just possible that what we think we see around us could not really be what it is. When we hug someone we may really be really punching them. For all I know I could be posting porn in your universe. So is the universe what we think it is? I don't know, but I'll keeping living in it like I do now. Discuss. Questions?
First of all, I would like to say yes. You are correct. Second, you are posting porn in my universe. Thirdly, I think it is important that we just happily live in our universe for now.
* * * * * * * * *--------------* *--------------* *--------------* *--------------* *--------------* * * * * * * * * If you wanted to get from one corner of this square to the other, a going diagonal across the middle would be the shortest path right? Nope. * * * * * * * * *------------*-* *----------*---* *-------*------* *----*---------* *-*------------* * * * * * * * * = * * * * * * * * *----------*-** *----------*---* *----*-*-*----* *----*---------* *-*-*---------* * * * * * * * * = * * * * * * * * *--------------* *--------------* *-------*-*-*-* *------*-------* *------*-------* * * * * * * * * = * * * * * * * * *--------------* *--------------* *--------------* *--------------* *--------------* * * * * * * * * If you change up your thinking, that diagonal line is an infinite amount horizontal and vertical lines. This would make that red line add up to the same distance as going all the way around correct? Lines as you know them have just been ****ed. The distances you see through your eyes aren't accurate. Chew on that.
I guess we could be doing terrible thing without noticing, but would you go and do what you think is bad so that you're actually doing good? No. (Or at least I hope not.) CHUCK, you realize your theory makes no sense?
I always wonder like, what if peoples' brains interpret colors different then mine. Like, what if something I see as green, could show up to someone else as what I think as blue. It could be happening and we would never know.
MousseMooseROCKS, Quagmire, you both must have missed this part: It actually makes sense to me. You see a smooth path, but even reality (the non-pixelated variety) breaks down into tiny components. Also M.Jelleh, these things are always worth wondering about, and not because thinking enough about the nature of reality will yield any revolutionary results. Not that at all. It's good stretching exercise for the mind.
Oh, I believe that it is worth thinking about, but merely that we should not devote our lives to something so abstract. Living in the present, while it doesn't sound as amazing, is just as important as thinking outside of the box.
Punching and hugging are just words, saying that you might be doing one when you think you are doing the other is pretty meaningless, seeing as the actions themselves are what you are talking about, and all this means is that you can switch words around and say things are different. The only thing this proves is that words are not inherently linked to what they describe or denote, an interesting and profound linguistic debate to my mind, but not really the same as the debate laid out in this title. Again, the word insane technically means nothing in itself, and even modern psychology appreciates that insane is a useful description for someone whose mind functions outside the normal appreciated parameters of human living, rather than an actual thing in itself. There is no 'supposed to' when it comes to how human minds work, and 'insane' people are just people whose minds work in different ways than what is appreciated as normal, thus in practical terms they are classed together as insane. Savants prove this point rather well, by showing that you can have a mind that works in a veeeery different way from what is appreciated as normal, what is the common functionality of the human brain, yet they still function perfectly well in their own way. It's not a case of 'broken' and 'working', but more one way of functioning and another, the only reason that insanity as it is appreciated is seen to be detrimental is because society works in a way which accommodates appreciated norms of human mental function, and finds it hard to accommodate people whose minds work differently. There is also the fact that some forms of what we call insanity affect perception of reality in a way which can make a person truly miserable, but again this is about perception of reality, not broken or working in any true sense. The crux of the issue actually put forward in the thread title is indeed about perception, how we perceive reality and whether what we perceive is in fact what exists in an objective sense. Take, for example, sight. Light is received by our eyes and our brain interprets this light into a coherent picture of what is in front of us. But saying that what I see is infact what is in front of me assumes that this interpretation by the brain is without fault. Indeed, the whole way in which we perceive the universe relies on this process, thus 'how the universe actually is' is something we will never really know, to perceive is the only way we can say that something is, yet this process of perception could indeed be colouring the nature of the thing which we perceive. But the practical fact again comes back to the fact that something only exists to us if we percieve it (via our own senses and, more recently in human development, via new scientific methods of perceiving something which we cannot perceive using our own senses), thus, for our purposes, the way we perceive things is the way they are. Talking about objective truth and fact is largely pointless, seeing as our entire existence is based around our own methods of perceiving the universe in which we live. But do we live here? I mean, our minds interpret light, vibrations in the air, pressure etc. and form a perception of the universe. But, as stated before, that does not mean that what we see is what actually exists in objective terms, our minds could be transforming or misinterpreting data (misinterpreting implies that there is, once again, a 'supposed to' factor here, which there is not, but you get what I mean when I use the term...). But, furthermore, our minds could be being 'tricked'. It all comes back to good ol' Descartes, the classic "I think therefore I am". People often mistake this as a rather base principle, but infact the point of this statement is that it is all we can ever really know. To think is to exist, yet everything else we appreciate as part of life, as part of reality, relies on perception, perception which we must assume to be accurate to continue past this basic conclusion. Therefore the idea of 'knowing' can never really get past this point of "I think therefore I am", everything past that is an assumption, relying on the means by which we perceive the universe to avoid sitting there not moving, just thinking for your entire life. But this should be seen for what it is, pragmatism, an appreciation of accepted norms to avoid that sitting around and doing nothing, but don't mistake that for some misplaced idea of objective truth or knowledge, there are, in ultimate terms, no such things. It's trite I know, but think about this: The Matrix could be real.
The definition of proof isn't actually "evidence," but rather a step up from what we can all relate to, understand, and have it make sense. If you think about it, proof isn't actually proof. Just something the majority of people can understand. However, everything is as we see it. I can gaurantee it, because we can feel it, we can see it, we can smell it, we can taste it, and we can hear it. If it was an illusion, somewhere along the lines, something wouldn't be mentally or physically correct. Let's use an example; a book. This book is five inches high, one inch long, and three inches wide. Everyone sees it as a book, and you can turn it's pages, you can hit people with it, and you can read it. If it wasn't something we saw it as, it would be an illusion, right? However, think hard and you'll realize it's only what we see it as. We just developed a name for it. Everyone understands it, the way we understand it. So if the majority of the people understand it, then we aren't insane. If the majority of people were insane, then that makes them sane, because the majority of people understand it. Now, let's say our brains are deceiving us in ways we don't imagine. I kill you, you're dead. You kill me, I'm dead. Either way, we are both dead. How are we not, and how is this an illusion. Now let's look at the dead body. We can determine it's dead, right? I hope it's dead. I don't want zombies existing.
Very interesting points Frag, but you're still putting too much emphasis on words themselves, despite your assertions against doing so with the book example. Now I agree with you about 'proof', it is indeed only an appreciated truth in terms that can be largely understood and appreciated across the gulf of one persons existence and perception to another. But your choice of 'illusion' niggles at me a bit, the connotations are all wrong imo. I'd prefer 'misinterpretation', and if you look at it in these terms then I don't know that you'd be so sure of your own perceptions. Think about colour blindness, and how it shows differences in perception that could have ramifications beyond appreciated norms of perception, what if we are all as 'wrong' in what we see as a colour blind person is when looking at red and green and not seeing the difference (based on red/green colour blindness). But go back to the Cartesian principle I outlined above, try and work up from there and keep as much certainty as "I think therefore I am" brings. It can't be done, as anything past that relies on perception, something which we cannot vouch for in terms of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is something that is beyond our reach, as we are confined to our own forms of existence and the human condition of existence (Ok, they're the same thing, but put in two different terms for ease of comprehension), all we have is pragmatic truth, that which we must appreciate to be true to get on with our lives, but don't mistake that for ultimate truth. By the way, much of my thinking on this matter (especially my earlier comments on insanity) rely on my agnostic beliefs. Ideas of 'supposed to' actually hold some weight if you believe in any of the staple deities, since there are inherent right/wrong, true/false ideas linked to religion. But this rather proves my point I think, since a deity, removed from human perspective, is essential in the formation of these ideas of right/wrong as inherent in the universe, as opposed to social constructions which I believe them to be due to my agnosticism. If you are religious, then I can't really argue these points since we approach the idea of existence from different angles, but in both cases it is appreciable that humans on their own can have no idea of objective, ultimate truth.
Yeah.. but it's just one diagonal line... Back on topic i agree with you. You could currently be in a coma and this is just a dream, however that would mean that my mind was part of you dream which is just plain creepy. So it's more likely that I am dreaming and you are all made up, especially you santa.
Gah, people are missing the point of Chuck's example and, as always, not abandoning their appreciated perceptions and methods of reasoning before looking at them. A simple example doesn't mean a simple approach, and the point of these examples is to make you think again about the most basic of your assumptions. Take a step back here people.
To your perception, yes. I'm not pointing out the fastest way, i'm pointing out that in theory, it's the same distance. That breaks down into infinite horizontal and vertical lines that have to equal the same distance as going around the square. INFINITE is the keyword here. My visual aids in no way go into infinite, which is why some of you are missing the point. What is a diagonal line? Do you even know?
Thank you Chuck, point made. The ideas of space and time are also very interesting in this sense, especially when you try and measure them. Think about Time: Now, I think you'll all agree that time is ultimately continuous as we appreciate it, there is no smallest unit of time, you can divide further and further, smaller and smaller, for eternity. Therefore, the idea of measuring time is useless in ultimate terms of truth. Think about time as a line, and think about how much of that line a second occupies. If there is no smallest unit of time, then you cannot truly place any point of where a second begins on this line, or where it ends, there is no absolute point where you move from one arbitrary unit of time to another, there is always an occupiable space inbetween, you can always zoom in further and further. So if we cannot exactly pinpoint where a second begins and ends, it must logically be infinitely long (and infinitely short as well, yada yada yada), either that or not exist at all as a unified and consistent measurement of time. To say that one second and another second are the same 'length' makes no sense, since technically they have no beginning or end, thus cannot have an appreciable length to compare. Now think about space and distance in the same terms. Space as in the actual absence of anything, not 'up there'. There is no smallest unit of distance and space, which you are either in one or an adjacent one when trying to define position, you can always be inbetween. Therefore you cannot pinpoint truly where, say, centimeter begins or ends, again making it infinitely long and short at the same time, and the idea of unified measurement goes out the window in absolute terms. The point here is that these things are truly continuous, and therefore cannot be truly broken down into sequential measurements in any true sense. Yet we have successfully used these perceptions of space and time for the entirety of human existence, and they've never steered us wrong. Just because something works for our purposes does not make it the case, that's the whole point of science: a model which works for our purposes but which we can never really know to be true in objective terms since we are confined by our own perspective, the human perspective. Now, with appreciated ideas of space and time thoroughly dispelled, think about how other assumptions on which we rely can be looked at closer, only to be seen as pretty wooly in philosophical terms.
True, but putting it into words that he can understand is very difficult. My theory: It's not what we misinterpret, but what we don't understand. Lower life forms don't see color because it's not needed. However, we do. Why? Because we are smarter. Our brains are smart enough to see and interpret color. The smarter we are, the more we can see and understand. That's why everyone thought Einstein was crazy. Because they couldn't understand him. However, he was just so smart, that he could see something we couldn't. Like try explaining color to a species that can understand you (your language), but can't see color. You can't, because their brains won't allow the concept because it lacks in that particular area, and they haven't seen it at one point. In other words, you would have to see it, to understand it. Which would require that extra part of the brain. A better example would be babies and adults. Babies can't understand adults because their brain hasn't fully awakened, and adults can't understand babies because it's something we have gotten rid of in order to adjust to the world around us. Babies can literally understand other babies. They know exactly what they are talking about, and can react to it. When it came to Einstein, we are like the babies, and him the adult. He could understand us, but that's because he had his brain adjusted to where it could react with the world. However, we couldn't understand him because we were missing an extensive knowledge to be able to understand him.
Nah, thank you peg for not being ignorant. The concept of infinite is such a mind****, really opens your eyes to a potentially bigger reality. There's also a theory that nothing moves. To get from point A to point B you have to travel half that distance correct? Well to get to that half distance you have to travel half of that, you'd also have to travel half of that distance and so on. So to get to point B, you'd have to travel an infinite number of half distances, making it impossible to do so. Sure we perceive movement, but is it there?
It's all about perception. ______________ That may look like a horizontal line to you but from an outside observers stance it could be diagonal. Likewise, your two lines that seem to have made the long way, the short way are two diagonal lines from my perception and you've simply stated that a straight line is slower than two diagonal lines, which by your logic, mean that those lines are of infinite length and hence the slow way.
Yeah, I love that discussion. People always seem to look at it on the surface and just say 'well of course you travel, otherwise everyone would stay still', and miss the point of what it's actually saying. That, if we take a closer look at our most basic appreciated concepts, our understanding of them (understanding on which so much is based) falls short of the mark in accuracy terms. That, whilst these appreciated understandings may work for our purposes, there are inconsistencies between our basic assumptions on the matter (ideas of measuring time, distance etc) and how we actually perceive time and distance, and how we perceive the passage of time and the idea of travel to affect us. As you say, infinity is just insane as an idea, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily even a case of 'bigger reality', but a potentially different reality. If these base assumptions on which we base all this stuff aren't consistent with how we perceive the stuff itself (stuff being time, distance, whatever), then what can we really take for granted except good ol' Descartes? I'd say that our minds simply can't quite cope with the concept of infinity in true form, we appreciate that it's there, for mathematic and scientific purposes and such, but can't really deal with it in our thinking. And that's kinda the point of all my rantings in here, our minds combined with our methods of perception don't look so solid when you consider stuff like that, so maybe the unquestioning trust people place in the human perspective of existence is more than a little unfounded. Yet the capacity to consider these ideas comes within our own minds. Kinda fascinating isn't it, existence? I've always thought that the real basic considerations such as perception, existence, nature of reality in base terms, time, distance, etc. are the most fascinating to consider. As you work further up the levels of assumption on which we base our sanity and deal with life, things get more and more tuned towards the way we appreciate these base considerations. Yet when you actually go back to basics, look and think about these base considerations in philosophical terms, you push closer and closer to the limits of what our minds in our perspectives can comprehend and deal with. This is where it gets really interesting if you ask me, generally yields significantly fewer answers and only more questions or dead ends, but just fascinating to think about. That which we can't understand is the most appealing form of understanding.
There is some inconsistency in the way that we measure time and length, but I think for the most part we're right (in this circumstance). I guess you're thinking the way a computer thinks. Pixels. Idk, just my guess. When really if you look at a map from a to b the easiest way would be to simply walk from a to be. Not go around or anything like that. It's not really divided down to diagonals. I think of it as if you walk in a straight line the whole time, it's just the world that turns, not you really.