Reply to comment

 Just a thought, I could be totally wrong:

What Paul Grobstein said really made me think about how we perceive the world (or how our brain perceives the world). But I still am confused about the idea that our brain assigns meaning to randomness. If we imagine that our eyes are capable of seeing molecules ( like we did in class), Paul Grobstein says that everything will be one big blu of molecules. I agree with this understanding, but it made me think: aren't molecules held together by attractive forces? (this is why a table is a solid object, right?) If so, even if our eyes were capable of seeing molecules, doesn't it make sense that the bonds or forces between the molecules would still exist? This would mean that even though everything would be a blur of molecules, solid objects would exist (until the bonds were broken). So assuming objects (held together by forces) still exist we (by process of thought) give an object a name, "table". But is the idea that the brain assigns a name (classification) the samee as assigning it a meaning? I think that although the brain interprets things in a way I don't understand, and classifies them, it is people's (physical) interacions with randomness that gives it meaning.