EPTOutside the Box
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10348 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
I think yes, but the human brain is too simple to completely understand and see the universe. We will need to use computers or robots or modify our brains in some way to be able to comprehend it all. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10348 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
I take issue with your rhetorical style which, ironically enough, fails to meet the criteria you set at in terms of ideal language from the beginning: you spend much time just joining together the various quotes or YouTube videos superfluously, where is your analysis, contribution or query? The idea that you could comprehend all knowledge (motivated by an anxiety of not knowing) is literary an impossible task - at least defined as 'in order to fully "understand" everything about everything, your brain must consist of at least everything.' An axiomatic system can only go so far. Finally, the individualism of thesis is shocking - surely all you have proven is that knowledge and understanding are things attained collectively? | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
On January 20 2013 06:41 Deleuze wrote: Isn't this really blog material? There's not really much to discuss (other than focusing on the assumptions made in your post). I take issue with your rhetorical style which, ironically enough, fails to meet the criteria you set at in terms of ideal language from the beginning: you spend much time just joining together the various quotes or YouTube videos superfluously, where is your analysis, contribution or query? The idea that you could comprehend all knowledge (motivated by an anxiety of not knowing) is literary an impossible task - at least defined as 'in order to fully "understand" everything about everything, your brain must consist of at least everything.' An axiomatic system can only go so far. Finally, the individualism of thesis is shocking - surely all you have proven is that knowledge and understanding are things attained collectively? OP, please report to the burn ward nearest you. No offense to Barrin, but very well-put put Deleuze :X I guess it was an interesting post, but...I don't think it accomplished much, if at anything, and it indeed probably should be blogged. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
No scientist ever tries to know everything, they spent their entire lives thinking and experimenting and repeating and repeating and checking and checking and redoing everything if there's a mistake and fix it and repeat then publish it ....just to add a little bit more to the collective knowledge of science. Nobody knows everything, they have to know how to work with what they have and learn from it. That's why people used to only be able to dream of flying and later planes used to crash a lot but now they crash once in a while -- but they're still crashing. Researchers live their lives constantly thinking they know nothing. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10016 Posts
 The problem with starting a thread like this is that many people will immediately go in cynic mode and criticize it, especially if they are not really 'into' this kind of thinking. The style you go for is kinda improvised thoughts based off thought provoking knowledge, which is really cool, but for more technically minded people it just isn't enough when you start to look at the details I am into this kinda thing, though, and i love those vids. I don't know how old you are or if anyone ever showed these to you but by far the most comprehensive and well presented set of science TV-level documentaries were Carl Sagan's Cosmos. I would seriously recommend checking it out if you haven't already.... EDIT: more on topic i guess, the phrase i believe you are looking for is "the map is not the territory". We think in symbols, our brain makes maps. Everything we experience is a map. We can never know the territory. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On January 20 2013 22:05 Barrin wrote: eureka moment?.. no. nothing? lol no. only thing? lol? Yup. You guys keep saying this is some sort of individualized thing and then turn around and say that basically most smart people end up getting it. I find this problem you have with the OP to be paradoxical. I think it is more of an issue of how the OP is framed. Being able to perceive the collective nature of knowledge from a subjective stand point is not individualist per se. Perhaps it would be better if you clarified your overall thesis or point, what you hope to achieve from the thread or more concrete argumentation as to why it is important. I meant what I said about this being blog material since, with all due respect, I fail to see the object of discussion. The OP seems nothing more than a string of cherry picked excerpts that justify your world view - there is no dialectical conflict or discursive means of entry. | ||
|
everydaya
Barbados2 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
GhostKorean
United States2330 Posts
| ||
|
Just_a_Moth
Canada1971 Posts
That's one thing everyone loves doing; learning. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I recommend you read The User Illusion. It's not a perfect book, but even apart from its central thrust it should provide you with a lot of little "a ha"s; it did for me! Your hypotheses need answering by natural science. Do you study physics or comp sci? Nice formatting btw. | ||
|
Tennoji
78 Posts
On January 21 2013 18:22 EatThePath wrote: hahaha oh barrin. I recommend you read The User Illusion. It's not a perfect book, but even apart from its central thrust it should provide you with a lot of little "a ha"s; it did for me! Your hypotheses need answering by natural science. Do you study physics or comp sci? Nice formatting btw. I study computer science and his hypotheses #1 is crap, #2 I'm not so sure about, needs proof ... | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
one does not have to know everything, one does not have to understand everything. one does have to know the how and the why; then, one can use his imagination to fathom the infinity. now, think of the mind as the ultimate receptor <-> transmitter the evolution endowed us with. cell surface receptors, enzyme-linked receptors, neurotransmitters, ion channel linked receptors, GPCRs, GPLR and so on, on steroids. that is your mind. it will use 'the how' to interract with everything and 'the why' to predict everything. (i used the word everything here as a describer for the surrounding environment). but here is the(a) twist. i am intp. i know, i perceive, how my mind skews my logic and my reasoning towards perception/intuition (experiencing is worth almost nothing to me. i don't need to touch, see or feel something to make it real) and i believe that has to do with satisfaction, as an intrinsic value for the mind. so as a conclusion here, i believe that each mind satisfies it's existence by validating it's way of working. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On January 21 2013 19:56 Tennoji wrote: I study computer science and his hypotheses #1 is crap, #2 I'm not so sure about, needs proof ... Are you sure you understand the scope of #1? Denying #1 is tantamount to asserting that you can store N bits with less than N bits. Are you suggesting that there exists a lossless compression algorithm for perfect knowledge of some subset (or all?) of the universe's contents? | ||
|
llIH
Norway2147 Posts
I have read almost all books of Richard Dawkins. And I love to think about this stuff. David Deutsch on multiverse: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/10/david-deutsch-multiverse-fabric-reality | ||
| ||
