Things We Believe But Cannot Proove

@grasshopper,

Wouldnt lots of triangles only fit perfectly togheder on the sides, being stacks of triangles above and bellow, what would make space have a "special direction", what sounds improbable? Smile

Just curious, cause I dont think stacks are what you really meant.

I agree that no idea has an onwer, but nowadays in most countries (not gonna say all cause I dont know all countries) the law accepts that ideas do have onwers. For example if 2 persons invent something similar, whoever registers the idea first will have exclusive rights to it for several years, independently of how vital or usefull the thing would be. The problem is that there arent really options to change it since we cant know if someone had the same idea or stole it. Maybe all research should be public with only literature, music, etc being still tied to those laws.

@grasshopper,

triangular... not triangles... there is no such thing as 2d... the concept is needed for like "cutting pizza into equal pieces" but i say triangular... icosahedrons... like a pyramid but instead of a square side its all triangle sides... they all fit together... if you imagine a honey comb... but draw lines on all the corner parts, you get triangles... but its a very complicated business because its not 2d... like if you were to take a stop sign, and add another line... and another... and another x100billion, you would get what appears to be a circle, but its not, if zoomed completely in you would see its but a bunch of tiny little lines... but again... 1d and 2d are concepts... in my theoretical workings its all only 3d

it really is much much much much more than i briefly summed up...

@grasshopper,

actually like the epcot center... thats a good example... it looks like a big sphere... but its not! its triangular

@manored,

manored wrote:

If you have a lot of point of view you have a lot of ways to defend your ideas, people get tired of the discussion before the conclusion

I dont know how much time Catcha used to spend here, but, from his post, it seens it was too much I dont know why he suddently started to think this forum is mostly worthless though, but I have never understood him well.

What conclusion???When death quiets your voice you have your conclusion...Until then, the truth is up for grabs...Who ever gets it first gets it for themselves...

@grasshopper,

I believe that the human has an inner self that is his true identity. This I cannot prove, but it is the only reason I am able to consider this in the first place.

Confidence, by the way, does not have to be arrogance.

Sincerely,
Pathfinder
Natural Logic

@grasshopper,

What is the difference between your inner self, and your outer??? I wish I could say my inner clothes were more groaddy that my outer; but I am mechanically minded and I sometimes look like a walking grease rag... When it comes to selves I like to keep mine whittled down to one, in case I feel like I am losing my mind I know where to look....

@grasshopper,

Youre having an identity crisis by the sound of things Rover.

Theres only one self, we call it the inner self because it is mysterious and we perceive it to be deep inside of us somehow. To speak of it we cannot help but refer to it as though it is in us. It is probably very much pre-conditioning preception.

There is no outer self, just the body that we use to interact with the world around us. But not to worry, if you lose your mind you can always check your shorts.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Youre having an identity crisis by the sound of things Rover.

Theres only one self, we call it the inner self because it is mysterious and we perceive it to be deep inside of us somehow. To speak of it we cannot help but refer to it as though it is in us. It is probably very much pre-conditioning preception.

There is no outer self, just the body that we use to interact with the world around us. But not to worry, if you lose your mind you can always check your shorts.

Could you call it your soul?

@xris,

Whatever I call it has nothing to do with what it is.

I am me despite any name that one chooses to call me.

@grasshopper,

I forgot the most major unprovable thing of all that i still believe in: Love

@grasshopper,

All those moral concepts are so many meanings we spend our lives proving, just as with life itself...Do you believe you are alive because some one tells you??? You know life is not real unless you prove it so...

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Whatever I call it has nothing to do with what it is.

I am me despite any name that one chooses to call me.

Ok does it can it survive your death?

@sarathustrah,

Love is very provable Sarathustrah.

I love you. And just this one instance proves it exists.

@grasshopper,

If there was no one else alive on this planet or even in this universe I would still know that I am what I am.

I would still be forced to interact with the environment in which I exist. I am not sure whether being alone would cause knowledge to be easier or harder to acquire. On the one hand there would be no one to decieve me and no lies to be learned, but on the other hand there would be a great deal less thought taking place and being made available for consideration.

But regardless, would one not know they are alive whether or not there was someone to tell them.

if you were born on a deserted island and your mother died in childbirth, and you were completely isolated from other humans, what do you suggest would be state of the identity of that person? What do you think would be their awareness of their life?

Do you suppose that they would instinctively try to stop blood flowing from a wound?

Do you suppose that they would instinctltively long for fellowship?

Would they be able to distinguish between themselves and their reflection in a pool of water?

When they hold their hand up to their face would they know that it was they who moved the hand?

When their heart swelled at the first sight of a beautiful sunrise would they know that something was going on inside of them?

And most importantly of all, who would they find when they close their eyes at night to prepare for sleep?

When you ask, can this person that I am, survive death, you have to ask that question in context with a particular meaning. If you mean, can the person that I am, survive the demise of this body I use; that is a mystery that cannot be proven, except to acknowledge that the life we had must have come from someplace, so it is logical to assume that same life can go there again, and return from there again as well. It is NOT logical however to conclude that there is no afterlife or continuation of life, just because it cannot be proven. The origin of life cannot be proven either. Does that incite you to conclude that life must therfore not exist? No, because you are experiencing that life. So using that thinking, what you mean to conclude is that when you are experiencing a life after this body than you will conclude that it is logical.

You see, it is not a matter of ifs with people who think this way, it is more a matter of when. As Boagie states, it is the NOW!

But how do you know that NOW is not an afterlife? If you did have a previous life, than that would have been the NOW.

So what are the odds?

I was born once, why not again?

@Pathfinder,

I believe by personal experience that it is possible when our body dies we move on..I dont know where or how but only that it carries on.I cant ever convince anyone else but myself. I might add it does not stop me from being agnostic.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Love is very provable Sarathustrah.

I love you. And just this one instance proves it exists.

but proving it is impossible... i would have to trust youre being honest. Trust is faith... so if i was skeptical and wanted you to prove this degree of love, i could try to translate the degree based on the effort but still... there could be no TRUE proof.:devilish:

@sarathustrah,

sarathustrah wrote:

triangular... not triangles... there is no such thing as 2d... the concept is needed for like "cutting pizza into equal pieces" but i say triangular... icosahedrons... like a pyramid but instead of a square side its all triangle sides... they all fit together... if you imagine a honey comb... but draw lines on all the corner parts, you get triangles... but its a very complicated business because its not 2d... like if you were to take a stop sign, and add another line... and another... and another x100billion, you would get what appears to be a circle, but its not, if zoomed completely in you would see its but a bunch of tiny little lines... but again... 1d and 2d are concepts... in my theoretical workings its all only 3d

it really is much much much much more than i briefly summed up...

Well if that more is enough to explain all the phenomena involving atoms then you can affirm it as correct, at least for now Smile

Fido wrote:

What conclusion???When death quiets your voice you have your conclusion...Until then, the truth is up for grabs...Who ever gets it first gets it for themselves...

There is always a chance that the points of view involved will actually aproach to the point of meeting and becoming one. Its very rare but possible, and I believe that were a discussion to last forever, eventually this would happen Smile

sarathustrah wrote:

I forgot the most major unprovable thing of all that i still believe in: Love

We do things because our emotions nag us into doing things, so Love is not inprovable Smile

We know it exists as a biologic function, whenever it goes beyond that or not depends of whenever you believe the mind goes beyond a biologic function or not.

Fido wrote:

All those moral concepts are so many meanings we spend our lives proving, just as with life itself...Do you believe you are alive because some one tells you??? You know life is not real unless you prove it so...

Perhaps I am not alive from our biologic point of view, but alive as being awake I surely am, as I perceive things. And, if I am awake, whenever I am alive or not is irrelevant Smile

xris wrote:

I believe by personal experience that it is possible when our body dies we move on..I dont know where or how but only that it carries on.I cant ever convince anyone else but myself. I might add it does not stop me from being agnostic.

That seens to be something people have to figure out thenselves to accept for some reason. I cannot understand why because its seens fairly simple for me, and I cannot remember how my mind was before figuring it out Smile

@grasshopper,

Love is not an emotion and it is not a chemical reaction.

Without the interaction of two separate individuals love cannot exist.

Love is the result of the interaction between two or more individuals and is realized in their feelings toward each other and also in their actions toward each other.

This is evidence of the fact that love and the human being hold a unique place in creation that is very different than the rest of creation.

Why is that?

Does this mystery tie into the other mysteries somehow? I think that there is some uinque bonding truth between the mystery of life, death, the spiritual dilemma, the origin of creation, love, and whatever the Originator of all of this may be.

But the mystery of it does not delete its reality.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Love is not an emotion and it is not a chemical reaction.

It depends of how you define the world "emotion". For me, any feeling that gives purpose can be called an emotion. It also can be considered a chemical reaction because all human thoughs are reflected into their bodies, so independently of whenever we are something greater than biologic reactions or not, there still exists the biologic reaction, as if the body was mirroring the soul.

Also I dont think love has more relevance than other feelings, all feelings require something other than the self to have existed before they can happen, and love doesnt necessarly requires another person. You can love an animal, a plant, a stone, even something you imagined.

@manored,

manored wrote:

It depends of how you define the world "emotion". For me, any feeling that gives purpose can be called an emotion. It also can be considered a chemical reaction because all human thoughs are reflected into their bodies, so independently of whenever we are something greater than biologic reactions or not, there still exists the biologic reaction, as if the body was mirroring the soul.

Also I dont think love has more relevance than other feelings, all feelings require something other than the self to have existed before they can happen, and love doesnt necessarly requires another person. You can love an animal, a plant, a stone, even something you imagined.

I don't think that is true...I don't think you can love a rock without projecting some part of yourself onto the rock...We can give things meaning out of our store house of meaning, but love is also caring... Who loves without caring, physically if it is possible for that person we love... But I have animals, and even have a sort of relationship with them, and I care for them... They warm my soul... And I have people I care for and show love to having never met... I know them, or people like them, and I know they are poor with a grinding poverty, and I do not feel I dehumanize them or injure them as Nietzsche meight say, with my pity...It is the same pity I feel for myself that I share with them, but I would be injured if out of a lack of pity I let them die, because I would be robbed of the relationship... So I would say love is a form of relationship...As a form it is a part of every relationship, and if it were not, one side or both would destroy the other...We care, that is, we make the love as emotion a fact by doing...We express our love... We care... We know it is an essential part of every relationship, even those not specifically love relationships... It is never one sided...It is never with inanimate objects... All that is illusion... We offer food to our private idols that we eat alone...

Philosophy Forum

Things We Believe But Cannot Proove

Quick Links

My Account

able2know