2006-09-29 13:56:16 · 11 answers · asked by hurricanetelevision 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You can trust -- Because cognitive experience is NOT limited to interactions of chemicals in your brain.
Reason with me.
Say for example that perception of color red is the same as certain chemical reaction in your brain. Then it follows that everything that is true about experiencing color red is true of that chemical reaction[1].
But imagine this: Say There is a geniuses neurosurgeon but she happens to be color-blind. she knows EVERYTHING about chemical reactions in the brain. So it would seem to follow that she would know what is like to perceive color red -- but she does not!
Thus experiences are MORE then chemical processes in the brain.
2006-09-30 06:53:57 · answer #1 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You seem to already be trusting something: namely that limitation itself, in order to assert it as the basis for universal distrust in the first place, which is self-referentially inconsistent.
Moreover, if experience were limited to those interactions only, then nothing would occur beyond those interactions, such as your question containing a conditional implication about trust and its relation to chemical interactions in the brain, as well as a whole slew of other background assumptions to give the question itself any meaning or significance.
2006-09-29 14:09:22 · answer #2 · answered by cheapersunglassesdotcom 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
...or so you think.
If experience is a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, how could we trust THAT empirically, if we're prefacing the concept with possible mistrust of our experiences.
That is, our knowledge of chemical reactions, based on theory or study - eventually needs to "get to us" - and if that in itself is in question - we can't trust anything.
Use this analogy; iYou have film in a camera, and you believe the film is giving you accurate representation of the world - assuming the film is not corrupted. Unfortunately, you can't analyze the film itself, because it can only give you a look at itself through its own filter, which may or may not be skewed.
So, how can we ever know the film is giving us a reliable account of our experiences?
2006-09-29 14:06:49 · answer #3 · answered by goatcane 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why shouldn't you? Animals have gotten along fine for millions of years using these chemically powered computers. Sure, there are the occasional foul-ups, but nothing that would render our trust in our cognitions useless.
2006-09-29 15:46:17 · answer #4 · answered by James P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would you do before your knowledge of chemicals and your brain? We do not trust ANYTHING, only those we need to trust, those things which need to trust us. Our senses need us to live so they live and we need our senses to live so we may live. It is a billion year old relationship.
2006-09-29 14:13:36 · answer #5 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't sound like you have a problem with trusting things. That made you sound pretty gullible. You trusted the studies or persons who told you that didn't you? That statement also sounds arrogant. You are a creation, not the creator.So how can you be so certain of your design when you didn't design it?
2006-09-29 20:08:09 · answer #6 · answered by pallas 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We "are" the chemical interactions in our brains!
2006-09-29 14:06:06 · answer #7 · answered by st pete rn 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have to trust your brain chemistry. If you are well balanced, great! If not, get on the right meds to help balance that...Then you can trust again.
2006-09-29 15:47:19 · answer #8 · answered by Kitty L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have resigned to the possibility that my whole life is one big joke dreamt up by some sadist, so I might as well approach everything as a figment of my imagination.
2006-09-29 14:12:53 · answer #9 · answered by boo! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quit adding some of those illegal chemicals and you'll find life has a whole new perspective.
2006-09-29 14:04:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋