Guybrush

Yes, the brain thing is a myth. Different parts of the brain do different jobs. Your speech center is not going to be operating at 100% if you're not in some kind of extreme language/understanding challenge. The same goes for the rest of parts of your brain. This somehow gave rise to a stupid myth that says we only ever use a small part of our brains which is frankly ridiculous. We wouldn't have that much brain if we didn't use it.

I see the pursuit of solipsism as one that is highly unlikely to bear any fruit. All it can do is make you doubt things that you likely benefit more from believing or even taking for granted, such as yourself, the banana you ate last tuesday or all the stuff you learned in science class today. Because it can't be proven or disproven, I doubt there's much wisdom to tap into there. As I wrote earlier, you may feel some existential dread I guess.

__________________
Something Completely Different

The Unfan

You're so dumb that a site made to teach children knows this. Yes, even kids can wrap their mind around the fact that we use 100% of our brain matter.

VeggieLover

please read my edit. I've found that very little of anything productive ever came from calling someone an idiot/stupid. Excuse me for having teachers who where a little behind the times. Thanks to you guys, I am now a little bit more educated, but its not because you called me stupid.

If you all want to accept reality without bothering to wonder what exactly it is, well congratulations, you're an average human. As for those of us who do like to ponder the unknowable, we should be allowed to do so (even on MB, its the PHILOSOPHY section) without being called idiots.

__________________
"Not remotely! Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you."

Guybrush

VeggieLover is right, it is the philosophy section and it should be possible to have discussions and disagreements without throwing words like "idiot" around. Anymore of that and I'll start handing out infractions.

__________________
Something Completely Different

The Unfan

Pondering how much of our brain we actually use when we have hard data to suggest 100% of it doesn't seem very philosophic.

I'm not sure we could ever conclude what exists without first proving there is actual reality though. That seems like the tricky part.

Freebase Dali

I'm loling so hard right now.

__________________

VeggieLover

I apoligize for bringing that up when i didn't actually have any current refrences to back it up... if it was true (which its not) then it would be philisophical, but moving on...

Until we accept a definition of reality, we cant "prove" anything. Proof only exists if we accept it as truth, same as religion etc. There are of course differences, and they require different types of faith, but nevertheless, both can be "disproved" by simply accepting a different definition of reality. I'm fairly certain we'll never really understand. But, just because we can't understand doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

"I think therefore I am" is probably the most basic realities I accept. everything else goes from there.

__________________
"Not remotely! Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you."

Guybrush

It's part of what I don't like about philosophy like this. Veggie, you say you like to ponder our existance but if you think about it, a hypothesis like solipsism doesn't actually promote any kind of inquiry, for example scientific research. Rather, it pacifies by playing with or accepting the idea that nothing is real and proving stuff or finding things out is fruitless and pointless.

It's oh-so counter productive.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Neapolitan

It is only through that passage of time does our expirences slowly become a figment of our imagination. It does mean at the time we are experiencing it, it wasn't real.

__________________

Freebase Dali

Veggie lover... I assume you believe that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, that it doesn't make a sound. (If I'm wrong, correct me, but I'm using this as an example)

When the tree falls, it does produce the vibrations that, because of compression in the atmosphere and the behavior of waves, produce the physical phenomena we perceive as sound.
Now... You, or someone else, may argue that if we're not there to perceive it, that it does not exist.
But logic argues against that, simply by science having proven that this occurrence is inevitable and fact. Just because we are not there to acknowledge the fact does not mean it is no longer a fact.

What that means is that regardless of whether we philosophically believe we exist or not, can we simply disregard the physical evidence to the contrary? If we do, then we nullify every scientific discovery or knowledge ever acquired.
I'm pretty sure you solidly believe in the reality of certain things. You wouldn't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, or walk out into a busy intersection because you know the physical repercussions of what would happen.
How can you deny that?
When is real real enough for you?
What is the point of questioning that and how far do you take it?

__________________