Proof of presence Vs. Proof of absence

[doesntmatter]

I do not know much about the brain, but I'm willing to be that happiness is associated with some type of activity in there. If I defined happiness to be something that I experience when my brain has this specific type of activity going on, can I then prove that I'm experiencing happiness?




Another example is somebody asking for proof that ~90% percent of recent terrorist attacks were not commited by militant muslims. This was followed up by another person mocking the original poster for asking them to prove that ~90% of terrorist attacks were NOT commited by militant muslims as opposed to the original poster having provide proof that they were.

I dont get it. Whats the difference in these scenarios?



You do have something to prove it with. In my head, the absence of whatever is in question is something.

For example, say you have a box. The top of the box is open and all other sides are closed. Lets say that we need to prove that there is either a presence of a blue ball in this box or an absence of a blue ball. Lets also follow up by defining a blue ball as any spherical object which is blue in color. You can easily prove either. Look in the box, there is no spherical blue object... there you go, you have proof that there is no blue ball in the box. You can simply look and see that there isn't one. I dont get why this isn't valid.

Can somebody address this example or any of the other ones?

so you think that because you can't see something that it isn't there?

absence is relative. just because its not able to obverved by humans, doesn't mean its not there.

now are you saying that if something truely "isn't there" by the very deffinition (it is not there under any circumstances) that just because it "could" be there makes an argument?

i'm kind of confused at the question.

you say that emotions have some sort of action in the brain effecting its activity, which is true. however we can't record and define emotions in relation to brain activity precisely.

i had a post regarding plants and their feelings that kind of follows suit with thei conversation. science is always evolving and discovering things and disproving things that we have "known" for long periods of time.

how do you prove/disprove existence or absense?

am i anywhere near your point?