Makaze

lol, it appears we are debating again.

Makaze, you are a very contradictory individual. You state
----------
Why do you keep having trouble making simple connections with what another person is saying?
----------
And then almost immediately you say
----------
You will have to read what I say and take it directly, rather than generalizing as you have been.
----------
How am I supposed to make the connections between one statement and another if I am only allowed to read what you say and take it directly? It is a contradiction. But. since I am not supposed to make generalizations on your statements, I will ask you outright:

Am I supposed to try and make connections between one statement and the next, or am I only allowed to read what you say and take it directly?

Another contradiction is this: You have stated in this post alone,
----------
I am saying that if you exist to believe it, then rather, you are wrong to believe that I do.
----------
and
----------
You believed, and probably still believe, that you can objectively know things that you perceive. That is objectively wrong.
----------
You also state in this post that
----------
You could say that I do not tolerate any concrete perception. If anyone believes something fully, I will break them out of it with logic. By believing one thing fully, you refuse to believe that every other possibility could be true, and that is truly intolerant. It is not specific to you or your beliefs.
----------
You fully believe that it is wrong to fully believe. You state that it is wrong for me to believe. That is what you said.
----------
By believing one thing fully, you refuse to believe that every other possibility could be true, and that is truly intolerant.
----------
You fully believe that it is wrong to fully believe, therefore, you are in the wrong, because you fully believe it. By believing that one thing fully, namely, that it is wrong to believe one thing fully, you refuse to believe that every other possibility could be true, namely, the possibilty in a certain belief being true, and that is truly intolerant. Another contradiction. You fully believe that it is wrong to fully believe. But, I am generalizing again. So I will ask you outright:

Do you really believe that it is wrong to really believe?

Another contradiction you make is the whole subjective/objective thing. You state
----------
Whether or not you can prove that you exist to me, or prove to yourself that I exist, is an objective statement based on logic, not subjective perception.
----------
and then state only a few sentences later
----------
Because of this, it is objectively true that the world you see is subjective to you.
----------
Now, basing on the context in which you are using the words Objective and Subjective, these are the parts of the definition I think you are using. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Objective:
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Subjective:
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.


So what you say is this:

----------
Whether or not you can prove that you exist to me, or prove to yourself that I exist, is a statement not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts, unbiased, an objective opinion, not relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
----------

----------
Because of this, it is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective position, true that the world you see is relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinuished from general or universal experience to you.
----------
Another contradiction. You say that it is objectively true that truth is subjective, in the same post in which you state
----------
I do not believe in subjective truth.
----------
But, I am not supposed to make generalizations, so I will ask you outright:

Do you fully believe that it is objectively true that truth is subjective?

And then as for this statement:
----------
I have not said that neither of us are wrong, not once.
----------
but you have said
----------
I am saying that if you exist to believe it, then rather, you are wrong to believe that I do.
----------
So you have said that I am wrong, but have not said that you could be. So then, you say that you are right and I am wrong. But, I am not supposed to make generalizations, so I will ask you outright:

Do you fully believe that I am wrong to fully believe, and do you fully believe that you are not wrong in fully believing so?

You also say that there is no difference between inefficiency and impractibility. You state
----------
"Action A is less important to me than Action B. Therefore, using my time on Action A rather than on Action B would be a waste, or inefficient to completing my goals."
----------
Assuming Action A to be this debate, and Action B to be leaving it, then what you are saying is this: "This debate is not as important to me as leaving it. Therefore, using my time on this debate rather than leaving it would be a waste, or inefficient to completing my goals." You have summed up inefficiency rather well. But you have left practicality out of it. Allow me to change the sentence to fit impracticality. "This debate, while important, is taking up too much of my time. This, among other reasons, makes it practical to leave the debate." In other words, "Action A, while important, is taking up too much of my time. This, among other reasons, makes it practical to turn to Action B." Now do you see the difference between inefficiency and impracticality? I did not say that the debate was not important, I did not say that the debate was a waste of my time and inefficient to my goals, I said that it took up too much of my time. You tell me that I am not allowed to make generalizations on your statements, but then you turn around and make generalizations on mine. Double standards. But, since I am not supposed to make generalizations on your statements, I will ask you outright:

Did you or did you not make a generalization that I believed this debate to be a waste of my time on my initial statement that it was taking too much of my time?

You state here
----------
Once again, I do not believe in subjective truth. Or, rather, if truth is subjective, then that statement is objective, and again, truth is objective, just not your perception of reality. "Truth is subjective" is an objective statement. If it is true, then objective truth exists. Do you see the problem?
----------
So, based on the definitions of subjective and objective, your statement becomes
----------
Once again, I do not believe in truth relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. Or, rather, if truth is relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience, then that statement is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts, unbiased, an objective opinion, and again, truth is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts, unbiased, an objective opinion, just not your perception of reality. "Truth is relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience" is a statement not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts, unbiased, an objective opinion. If it is true, then uninfluenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts, unbiased, an objective opinion truth exists. Do you see the problem?
----------
I believe I do. The problem is that if Truth, honest to goodness, unbiased, not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice; based on facts, truth, really does exist, then truth is not relating to the properties or specific conditions of the mind, as distinguished from general or universal experience. The problem lies in that if Truth is true, than it not being true is false. So then, if your perception of truth, namely, that truth does not exist, is true, than truth does indeed exist and your perception of truth, namely, that truth does not exist, is not true, because it cannot be true that it is not true if it is true. It cannot be true that truth cannot exist, because if truth existed, than it wouldn't be true that truth did not exist. So it is an unending cycle of doubt and headache, because you fully believe that it is true that nothing is true, and so since it is true that there is no truth, truth is real, because it is true that it is not. So what do these philosophers who believe this perception say? They take your position,
----------
There is no way to discern truth, because you cannot prove any position based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
----------
Really, they claim to not believe in an unbiased truth based on facts, because if they believed in such a thing as true truth, they would have to admit that they have less evidence to support their "truth" then those who believe in other truths. The only evidence to support your position is that you cannot be 100% sure that any other evidence is real. Bhuddism, Catholicism, Christianity, Atheism, Animism, Spiritism, or any form of polytheism, dualism, monotheism, or pantheism, all the evidence for any one of these religions far outweighs any evidence that nothing is true, and so the only way to convince people that nothing is true is to try and get them to doubt the evidence they see, so they come up with this theory that since nothing can be true, and it is impossible for nothing to be true, then truth must be subjective, and anyone who believes that their perception of truth is truth must be intolerant to every other perception of true truth, and how do you know that your truth is the true truth? You can't be absolutely certain that your truth is true truth, and so to assume that your truth is true truth just shows how stupid you are to believe in something as true truth so blindly, because true truth cannot exist.

This can all be a bit hard to follow, so let me use an example: There is a room filled with tables. Some tables are made of different kinds of wood, some tables are made of plastic, some are made of metal. Some tables are bigger than others, some tables have legs that fold underneath, making them easier to move. Some tables come with extra leaves, so the owner can extend the table when needed and make it bigger than it usually would be. Every person in the room is sitting around one of these tables, they sit by the table they like best. Then someone decides that he doesn't like any of the tables that are available, he thinks that it is outrageous and intolerant of everyone to want him to choose a table, so he creates a table of his own, a table that claims that no tables exist. Now, the mere existance of this table contradicts its claim, that no tables exist. So what does the creator of this table do? There is more evidence that tables exist than there is that they don't, so he decides that the only way people will sit at his table of nonexistance is to get them to doubt the evidence. So he comes up with this idea, and it's a brilliant idea, by the way. He starts whispering doubts in the ears of the people, doubts that their eyes are lying to them, that they only think there is a table in front of them. He says that they are hallucinating, that there really is no table, they only think there's a table because that is what they were conditioned to believe. One person says that he knows there is a table because he feels it with his hand, and so the table-maker says that his hand is lying to him, that he only thinks he feels a table because that is what his hallucination is telling him. Another says that he hears the table, and knocks against it with his hand. And so the table-maker says that his ears are lying to him, and it is only the hallucination that makes him think he hears the sound of a table being knocked on. I don't need to go on, you know how it goes, you used the same argument on me. If the product you are trying to sell has no evidence to support it, then all you have to do is get the people to doubt the evidence that is stacked against it, and voila! You have a group of people sitting at a table, firmly convinced that there is no such thing as a table, while the table-maker goes from table to table, trying to convince everyone else to move to his table by making them believe that tables don't exist. And whenever a person has the sense to say that tables do indeed exist, they are lambasted for being so simple-minded as to believe in the evidence of their eyes, and they are called intolerant to believe in the existance of their table rather than the other, and their table is made fun of, all in the name of tolerance and equality. But if the table-maker actually allows the people at his table to see that they are sitting at a table, they would leave, because the table is proof of the existance of tables. So even those who sit at his table are told that they have no way of knowing this table is real. Because if tables exist, then the table claiming that tables don't exist would be wrong, and likewise, if tables really don't exist, than the table claiming that tables don't exist would be right, and if the table is right, than tables exist, making the table wrong. That is the problem with objective truth in regards to your philosophy. If you are right, and truth does not exist, than you are telling the truth, which makes you wrong, since truth then exists. So since you cannot be telling the truth, you say that truth merely cannot be proved, even though you really believe that you are right and truth does not exist, because if you are right, and truth does not exist, then you are telling the truth, and so are wrong, because by truthfully saying that truth does not exist, you are contradicting yourself. That's why you come up with sentences like
----------
The argument here is that you cannot know the truth even though it exists. Not that the truth changes based on what you see. You simply cannot know that it is true without significant doubt.
----------
If you can't get me to join your table by evidence supporting your theory, namely, that my table does not exist, then all you can do is try and get me to doubt my evidence, and then you think I might join your table on the grounds that mine might not exist.

So the people of your table choose to close their eyes, stuff their ears, plug their noses, clamp their mouths shut, and tie their hands behind their back, because if they saw the tables, and smelled the tables, and felt the tables, and (heaven forbid) tasted the tables, than they would have to admit that tables exist.

And that is the problem with objective truth. But since I am not supposed to make generalizations, I will ask you outright:

Do you fully believe that it is wrong to fully believe?
Do you fully believe that there is no such thing as a truth?
If so, then do you fully believe that you are telling the truth when you say that there is no such thing as truth?
Do you fully believe that there is no computer in front of you?
Do you fully believe that I, Marushi, am only a hypothetical non-entity in your hallucination?
Do you fully believe that you are in fact hallucinating, dreaming, or living in a full-body illusion?

Be honest with yourself, you don't have to answer these questions, you don't have to explain your answers to me, I'm not out to try and get you to admit anything to me, only to yourself. If you really, truly, fully believe in your philosophy, than you have just proved your own philosophy wrong to yourself. You told me that to try and prove that my mind doesn't exist would only serve to prove that it did in fact exist, as I would need to have a mind in order to try and prove I didn't. In the same way, you trying to prove that there is no truth only serves to show you that truth does, in fact, exist, as you would need to be telling the truth in order for truth to not be real. In fact, just one question answered honestly can tell you for sure whether or not you are right or wrong with your philosphy.

Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?

If the answer to that question is yes, than you know that you are wrong, because in order for your philosophy to be true, truth cannot exist, so if truth exists, then your philosophy is not true, and if truth does not exist, then your philosophy is still not true, because truth doesn't exist. No matter which way you look at it, you are wrong. That's why it is so important to you that I admit that it is impossible for me to prove my faith. You fully believe that there is no such thing as a table, and so when you see someone who fully believes that there is, you feel that you must try your best to convince me that I am hallucinating, because you fully believe that it is wrong for me to fully believe. Your position is not, as you claim, that there is no discernable truth, because if this was indeed your position, you would be perfectly fine with me believing in my table, because if there was no discernable truth, then for all you know, I could be right, and as you claim, there is no discernable truth, so I might be. If you are right, and there is no discernable truth, than there is no harm in me thinking that there is. The real issue is that you really truly believe in what you believe in, and that's alright, but that means that I am wrong, and you want me to admit that I am wrong, which I will not do, because I also really truly believe in what I believe. So you sit at one table, and I sit at another, and you are currently trying to get me to admit that my table is wrong and yours is right, and since you can't do that by proving it's existance, as by doing so you would be proving that it is wrong, you instead just try and get me to admit that mine is false, by trying to get me to believe that I cannot trust my evidence. In a courtroom, tainted evidence is probably the worst thing that can happen in a case, because if the evidence is faulty, then the crime cannot be proved. So you try and taint my evidence, because without evidence, I have no way of knowing wether or not my table is real. You admitted it yourself.
----------
I simply wish to break you into accepting that the world is not as concrete as you make it out to be.
----------
You wish for me to "accept" that my evidence is faulty, because if I do so, you hope that I will leave my table and join yours. Well, so far you have suggested that my evidence is faulty, you have showed me that it could be faulty, but you have not given sufficient evidence that it is faulty. Give me real evidence that what I believe is false, not just this run around that it might be. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. Until you can prove that my evidence is faulty, instead of just saying that it could possibly be so, I will believe it. It's as simple as that. I am not so easily swayed by conjecture and hypothosis, I require facts and sensibiity before I accept that I am sitting at the right table. You say that I merely believe the way I do becauseI have never thought about anything else? Wrong. For years, I didn't believe in God. I had grown up a "christian", I had heard all the stories and I knew the rhetoric, just like you, but I did not accept it as a religion until I had sufficient evidence to believe in it. Until there is evidence, it is just an antiquated story, the faith of my parents, silly little songs sung by sunday school teachers. I believe not because I simply was told to, I believe because I found satisfactory proof that it was true. If you can sufficiently taint this evidence, instead of just the conjecture that it might be tainted, well, I might just reconsider. Good luck trying, though. My faith is very well rooted, and I usually know what I'm talking about, so it will take a whole lot more than half-proved rumors to shake my beliefs.

You're welcome. I try to help whenever I can.

I always make it a point to defend valid points. In this case, I do happen to agree with you on this, though I'd still defend your point if I did not.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm getting on your good side.

Oho, so you say that I am wrong in my belief that I exist. Now we get to the real issue. You say that you wish for me to admit it, but then you also say that that for me to admit, I would have to have been wrong about it previously. So, you say that you are right and I am wrong. Nothing subjective about it. Contradictory to your own arguments. What you say and what you do are two different things, you say that it's all about perception, that what you percieve is your truth, and what I percieve is mine, and neither of us are wrong. That's what you say. But what are you trying to get me to do? You stated that
----------
I simply wish to break you into accepting that the world is not as concrete as you make it out to be.
----------
In other words, you wish for me to admit that this world could be an illusion. Therefore, since you wish for me to admit that the world could be an illusion, and as admitting something means that I was wrong in the first place, you are telling me out-and-out that I am wrong. You are telling me that the world is an illusion and my beliefs that it could be real are a result of my stupidity by choice. Not very tolerant of you, Makaze, for one who claims that all may believe as they percieve.

I did not say that it was a waste of time, I said that it took up too much time. There's a difference between being too busy to respond to something and having the response be a waste of time.

As for my dictionary being innacurate, you again fall into the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. My dictionary and your dictionary don't match up. So what do you say?
----------
Your dictionary appears to be faulty.
----------
Nice. My dictionary must be faulty, because it doesn't agree with your dictionary. Again, contradictory to your argument of a subjective truth. Really, Makaze, do you really believe what you say at all, or do you only believe that you and you alone are right, and this current philosiphy is just what is closest to letting you justify it?

So... you never admitted there was a possibility in my beng right? What do you call this?

----------
Logically, there are just as likely to exist (50-50), but pragmatically, people are far more likely.
----------
And this?

----------
So, we both see that the other's position is possible. I am more than willing to be flexible because I realize this.
----------
And this?

----------
Furthermore, it is just as likely as your position (that they exist).
----------
And this?

----------
It is entirely possible that it does exist.
----------
Each one of those quotes is you admitting that I might possibly be right. How then can you say that you did not admit it? Furthermore, if you had not admitted it, but wished to "break me" into admitting it, that would be you going against your own argument, which is, truth is subjective to the one who percieves it. You are attempting to get me to admit that you are right about your truth, that nothing exists, but claim that you yourself do not have to agree that I might be right about mine, which is that I do indeed exist. Double standards, much?

And how do you know that my only reason for quitting is because it takes up too much of my time? I have more than one reason for quitting, just because you do not know my reasons does not mean my reasons do not exist. Also, quitting an argument because the argument takes up too much of my time is practical, and has nothing to do with inefficiency, did you even read the definitions, or are you so set in your preconcieved notion of what the words mean that you completely disregarded what the dictionary had to say on the matter? Inefficiency implies that I was not sufficiently capable of arguing, impracticality means that it was no longer sensible for me to do so. I quit because the logical reasons to stop far outweighed the logical reasons to continue, not because I was unable to continue.

According to the dictionary, inefficient is not a word either. Which am I supposed to use?

Well, you admitted that there was a possibility in me being right, and you still argued. Why are you so surprised that I did the same?

Alright, did so.

Impractical
1. not practical or useful.
2. not capable of dealing with practical matters; lacking sense.
3. idealistic.
4. impracticable.

Efficient
1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.

So pretty much, the difference between impractical and nonefficient (I had earlier used inefficient, which was incorrect. Sorry) is that impractical means that it was no longer practical or reasonable for me to continue, while nonefficient means that I was no longer able to perform satisfactorily. So basically, I quit because it no longer made sense for me to argue, not because I could no longer do so.

Ok...
Sorry, I don't think my computer is able to download them. :/

Yup. lol, you act like you have to work really hard at getting me to admit that you might not be real, but I've admitted several times that you could be right and not exist.

And if unpragmatic is not a word, than what is the negative of pragmatic? inpragmatic? illpragmatic? nonpragmatic? If pragmatism is, as you say, Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations, then efficiency has nothing to do with my reasons for leaving the debate. I stopped debating because it was impractical to continue, not because it was inefficient.

Oh, yeah I had every intention of reading it, I just think it would be unpragmatic for me to respond to it. Sorry, I should have been more specific with my last sentence.

Just thought I'd let you know that I updated the Sherlock fanfic.

Do I have to download them or...? Is there another way for me to view them? (sorry, not familiar of this website)

----------
No. It takes less effort and is more logical to take my position. Furthermore, it is just as likely as your position (that they exist). Do you at least acknowledge
that?
----------
So now the logic of your position relies on the amount of effort you have to make? You're saying that since it is just as likely that you're dreaming as it is that you're
awake, the "logical" thing to do is live just for yourself and not care about everyone else? Your problem is not that "you're wrong", the problem is you might be
wrong, and you've lived your life only to help yourself, and you've hurt other people in the process.

Let me give an example: In Kingdom Hearts II, DiZ uses Roxas as a tool to get revenge on Organization XIII. According to his "logic," Roxas doesn't even exist anyway,
there's no harm in attacking him, removing his memories, trapping him in a virtual world, and keeping him away from his friend, who has orders to kill Roxas if he
doesn't come back with him. When Roxas finds out about this and gets angry, DiZ calmly replies that Roxas doesn't have the right to exist, and he feels no guilt in
completely ruining his life. Later on in the game, DiZ, or Ansem, as we find out he is, says that he regrets treating Roxas like a (for lack of a better word) nobody, because
he realized that Roxas did indeed have a heart, and he attempts to apologize to Roxas through Sora.


----------
But, I digress. Pragmatism is closer to my position. It holds that you should only believe a thing as long as your knowledge of it is of use to you. For example,
you would arbitrarily say that if this computer does not exist, then why am I using it? And I would say because it is useful. If a thing exists in practice, has practical use,
then it is pragmatic, or more efficient, to act as if it exists, whatever you believe. It helps you attain your goals, so the pragmatic approach is to make use of the tools
available to you. Similarly, I have knowledge of unicorns, but I do not have use of them, so it is pragmatic to assume that they do not exist.

The same is true of people. It is pragmatic to use those that I can, and foolish to use those that I only have theoretical knowledge of. Efficiency comes first.
----------
For you, everyone is a Roxas. They don't exist anyway, their sole existance is in your head, therefore there's no harm in using them to further your own convenience. The
problem with this logic is that you might wake up one day and realize that all these people have hearts, and are real, and truly do exist, and you hurt them just to make
yourself feel better. Have you ever heard the phrase "better safe than sorry?" That is my logic. For all I know, you could be right, and nobody exists. And if that's true,
then I'm wasting a whole lot of time typing out a response to a Nobody's argument. But if I'm right, than you'll be sorry for what you've done someday, when it's
too late to apologize. It's more logical to not hit somebody just in case they feel than it is to hit them on the off-chance that they don't feel it anyway. And anyway, if this
is all in my head, then what's the harm in my trying to make a difference in my own world? If this is all just an illusion, why is it so wrong for me to try and make a
happier illusion?


----------
I do not have to prove it at all. There is no objective way to prove either existence or nonexistence. All I have to do is get you to acknowledge that there is no way
to tell, and you will wonder all on your own.
----------
Alright, there is no way to satisfactorily prove either existance or nonexistance. Thanks for agreeing with me. There is no way to prove nonexistance. I don't have to prove it at all. Therefore, there's a
50-50% chance that I am real, and you are real, and everyone else on the planet is real. That's why I try so hard to be nice to everybody. Like I said earlier, better safe
than sorry.


----------
That's great, and you know, I could claim that I exist too, but that does not prove anything at all. Both of us are perfectly capable of imagining the other saying
that. It is quite useless to make any claim. It does not work as evidence. I do not have to 'prove' that those things do not exist, and you cannot prove that they do. I can
argue for why they do not, and you can argue for why they do, but both of these are the same. The main difference is that assuming a thing does not exist is the safest
and most logical policy. You assume that a unicorn does not exist because you have no way of proving that it does. If you concede that you have no way of proving that
anything does, then you can stop believing in it for the same reason. Yours is far less logical.
----------
Wait, so what you're saying is that since there is no way for me to prove that Africa exists, it is logical for me to be racist to any African or African-American I meet,
because they, by extension, do not exist? No, I think it is far more logical to be polite and civil, to be nice to these people, just in case they do exist. It is more logical
to refrain from hitting somebody in the face because they might feel it than it is to go ahead and hit them because they might not.

----------
No? I use them simply because in dreams, you can have things that certainly could have happened with the same dynamics as a real-life situation, to the point
that you get confused, and they, according to most people, did not really happen. I have had dreams like this myself.

It is not meant to literally be a dream, because dreams as we know them do not allow us to think at what we see as full capacity. Rather, it is meant as an example of
what your mind can do to trick you into thinking many, many things that it wants you to: that other people exist, as a good example.
If it can do it in dreams, then it can do it here. I have no reason to assume that my mind is limited to dream logic, because I clearly think with other methods. But dreams
tell me that it is also entirely capable of convincing me that I am somewhere and talking to people and doing things that I am not. If you mix these two capacities, then
you get what we have now. A full-on bodily hallucination, with intelligent thought, such that you cannot even prove that the body exists outside of your imagination.
----------
I see what you're saying. You're saying that since dreams are an illusion, than what makes life any different than another illusion? Well, I cannot prove to you that our
lives are anything more than a dream. I'll just say again that it is far more logical to be safe than sorry.


----------
Great, now, because this particular dream seems to have complex rules and you have been in it your whole life, it is somehow 'more realistic'. Could a dream
not have a complex rule system similar to our own; self-contained continuity? What stops it from doing so? Have you not had dreams that operated just like reality? And
would you not assume that anything was real if you experienced it your whole life? If you lived in cartoon land your whole life, you could think that it was real, and not
this. You only attach 'real' to this particular rule set because it is what you have spent most of your time living under. Why do you value solid things? Why are they more
real? Is that not simply because you associate it with the world you live in (circular argument, "It is real because it is solid" and "Solid is more realistic because it just is")?
Sigh...
----------
Alright, so you first compare "real-life" to dreams, stating that they are alike in that they are both illusions. Then when I point out that dreams, illusions, are not a good
parallel to "reality," seeing as how in illusions, everything is a lie and nothing makes sense, you tell me that it does indeed work as a parallel because life makes sense?
You say that these complex rules that guide our solar system are really just another illusion of my laptop running away with my DS. Where in this world have you ever
seen something like that happen? There mere existance of scientific laws serves to prove that things are real, because in illusions, rules don't have any bearing. Yeah,
you've had realistic dreams before, so have I. But that doesn't disprove the times when we've dreamed crazy things that would never happen in "real life." If the world
really is only an illusion, than why do scientific laws even exist? An illusion does not need to make any sense, and it rarely does. To try and draw a parallel between
dreams and "real life" is like trying to draw a parallel between an episode of spongebob and The Bourne Ultimatum. It just doesn't work.


----------
Nothing is black and white. Do you know anything about quantum physics and mechanics? Light demonstrably is a wave if you look at it with one
instrument in one way, and demonstrably a particle if you look at it another way. Never is it demonstrably both at the same time. In the same way that time is relative to
your speed, it is incredibly easy to argue that light does not exist until you are looking at it. And this is even if everything is real and solid, science proves my point. You
cannot separate your perception from whatever it is you perceive. Time changes with how fast you move, and light is neither a particle nor a wave until you look at it to
see which it is.
----------
Alright, science than. When I said black and white, I meant that I believe everything must follow scientific laws. Yeah, Light can be a wave or a particle depending on
how you look at it, but Light will never be a piece of steak, now matter how many times I try to stick a fork in it and put it in my mouth. Science does not prove that
nothing exists, science proves, if anything, that we merely do not understand everything about the life around us. You say that your world only exists as far as you see,
and to an extent, I believe that. In the video game The World Ends With You, Neku, the main protagonist, starts off the game by saying "Shut up, go away, stop talking,
all the world needs is me. I've got my values, so you can keep yours, alright?" He shuts the world out, living only for himself and completely blowing off the people
around him. His world literally only was about him.

But the thing is, the rest of the world was going on, even though he didn't see any of it. Shiki was feeling jealous of her best friend, Eri, and didn't know her own strengths
and weaknesses. Beat was running away from his future, and his parents had all but given up on him, but not his little sister, Rhyme. Ai thought that Makoto was
cheating on her with Mina, her best friend. That ramen guy was almost going out of business because no one would buy his ramen anymore. That didn't stop just
because Neku didn't see it, but until Neku could see it, his perception of the world was stuck in a self-actualizing loop, he only lived to please himself, and he certainly
didn't seem very happy, despite this. It wasn't until he opened his eyes to the world that he learned to really appreciate his life.

Your perception of the world being all about you does not make it true. The world goes on, wether Makaze lifts a finger to help or not.


----------
You think like a child. Cause and effect, true or false. Let me show you a video on the subject, might explain it a little more. It should also help you understand
my purpose in espousing this to you.

You need to keep in mind that, like the instruments used to measure light, your body is made up of instruments. Your eyes, ears, and other sensory organs are all your
instruments for taking measurements of the world. And like any instrument, any measurement of the universe using them tells you as much about the instrument as
about the universe you are measuring. There have been thousands of microscopes made in a trial and error attempt to get the most efficient measurement. If they did not
respect the principle that a measurement tells you as much about the instrument as the thing you are measuring, then they would have stuck with the first try and said
'this must be right because I that is what the instrument tells me'. By your logic, they should have stopped trying because after all, what you see is what you get. Black
and white. The same applies to your eye and every other instrument.

----------
I watched the video, and I agree that the measurement tells you just as much about the instrument as the thing you are measuring. I also agree that the instrument can
be faulty. But to assume that what you see can not possibly exist because your instrument might just be messed up is more faulty than to assume that what you see is
true. There have been thousands of microscopes made in a trial and error attempt to get the most efficient measurement. If they did not respect the principle that a
measurement tells you just as much about what you are measuring as the instrument you use, then they would have given up after the first try and said "this can't be
right because the instrument is wrong." By your logic, they should have stopped trying to understand the universe because after all, you can't be sure that your
instrument is right. Nothing is real. The same applies to your eyes and any other instrument. To disregard the evidence of your eyes because your eyes might be
malfunctioning is more faulty than to believe that what you see is real.


----------
Clearly, you do not. I am willing to bet that nearly everyone you meet will tell you the same: that you do not know your mind's limits. Certainly, not
everything has to make sense to you for you to think of it. In the same way that you may think of something and think it makes perfect sense right now, tomorrow, you
may look back and say that it made no sense at all. At one point you understood it, and at another you did not. The same can be said of anything else you experience.
----------
You seem to be a very pride-filled individual, Makaze, if you really believe that you could have come up with the entire universe on your own, subconsciously or not. I
am not trying to say that I am unimiginative, uncreative, or that I'm selling myself short. But I know that there is no possible way for me to have come up with the idea
of the universe. Do you have any idea what the universe is? Do you know how DNA strands build themselves, do you know the precise formula needed to create a single
strand of DNA? Do you know exactly why your blood clots up and forms a scab when you get cut, and do you know how it knows to do that?

Do you know how leaves grow, do you know how a seed turns into a sapling? Do you know the inner workings of every nuetron and electron that forms an atom? Atoms
form matter, electrons and nuetrons form atoms, what makes an electron? If splitting an atom creates a nuclear explosion, than how come explosions don't happen all the
time, whenever any part of matter is removed from another part of matter? How come no atoms get split when you saw a piece of wood in half? Do you know exactly
why the wind blows? What about rain, do you completely understand the water cycle, do you know why water evaporates? How does the water evaporate, what makes
it turn into a vapor and rise to the sky? What is the air? how is it that oxygen is in the air, everywhere, and doesn't all escape into space?

Why does the earth rotate in a perfect circle around the sun? How did we manage to be the perfect amount of distance away from the sun so that we don't burn up by
being too close and we don't all freeze to death by being too far away? What's the deal with gravity anyway, why are objects attracted to larger objects? How come Pluto
hasn't been sling-shotted away by now, and how come Mercury hasn't crashed into the sun? What about the moon, why is it that the moon, being so small, revolves
around the earth instead of getting caught in the sun's gravity and pulling away? How can the sun keep burning when there's no oxygen to fuel the fire? How come the
nearest star is billions of lightyears away? How many stars are out there? How come stars seem to blink if you look at them from your front yard? How does a telescope
work, and how does a microscope work?

What are all the different kinds of fish in the ocean? Why do we have volcanoes and geysers to let out steam and build up, and how come these things only let a little bit
of the earth's core out, instead of being a constant outpour of molten lava? Why does a volcano stop spraying? What makes a packet of mentos erupt if you stick them in
a bottle of Diet Coke? What are colors made of? How come one thing is red and another thing is green, and where on earth does magenta come into play? Is it red, or
pink? What is music? How come we hear different pitches when we move our voice up and down? Why do we feel so stirred by the sound of a melody? Why do
harmonies exist? Whose idea was it to say words while moving the voice up and down to create a tune?

Why does the lightning make thunder? How come when we hear the sound lightning makes as it strikes, we call it thunder? How come other things don't have a
different name for the sound they make? Why is there such a thing as language? Whose idea was it to teach people that certain sounds mean certain words? Why are
there so many languages? How come people don't all speak the same language? Why are some people black and some people white? Why do some white people hate
black people? When did prejudice start happening? Why is it so hard for people to get along? Why is there such a thing as war? How come people die? How come
people kill eachother? Why are people selfish? Why are people stuck up? Why are people violent? Why are people lazy? Why are people perverted?

Do you have an answer for all these questions? The universe is a very very complex place, and for me to think that I could possibly have thought it into existance is
the pinnacle of arrogance. But then again, I am not Makaze. If I really am only a figment of your imagination, then I would like to lodge a complaint about what you've
done with the place. This place is filthy! Why would your mind imagine a polluted world? If it's done so subconsciously, then what does that have to say about the state
of your mind?


----------
Aah, there is your problem. Did I ever say that it was to please you? What if you hate yourself? Many people do. Don't nightmares factor in? What about
people who are conflicted (virtually everyone)?

It does not follow that it exists to please you, nor that it should be on the same page. Rather, think of it this way: at some point in your life, all of it will make sense to you.
It does not yet because you are not fully aware yet. In other words, you are still too young. It is already on the right page, you just have not read up to it yet. Have fun
getting there.
----------
So this world is a nightmare to you? Wouldn't you wish to change that? You say this is all a dream, an illusion created by you for you, if you don't like it, why not try
and change it? If you hate yourself, and the world is your subconscious made visible, than wouldn't it follow that to change yourself you must alter this subconscious? It's
like being allowed to walk into your brain with a trash bag and one of those... pointy stick things... so you can clean up your life and live it the way you want to. If the
world is for your using, then why not use it to make yourself better? If you don't like your life, then change it. If you think your life is miserable, than look around you,
you might find something that makes you miserable cluttering up your subconscious. Get rid of it, and you're one step closer to literally "living the dream".


----------
That makes no sense. You know that you think, right? So you know without a doubt that you are not my creation or anyone else's. It is impossible for you to
be nothing if you are thinking. I do not see your point, because you cannot disprove that you think; the very act of disproving validates your existence.
----------
But according to you, I'm not thinking. According to you, you're thinking, and I'm not real. I am only part of the illusion, and if I were to interpret my own
presence in your dream, that is, supposing that you are right and I am a message from your subconscious, than I would say I am either a wake up call telling you to get
your life together, or I am an irritating nagging doubt in the back of your mind as to wether or not this really is all a dream. Perhaps I am not thinking,
perhaps I am merely your subconscious, I mean, you can't prove that I exist, right? You can't prove that I'm thinking. The only one you can trust to really
think is yourself. If you're the only real being in the universe, than I am not, in fact, thinking at all. Therefore, I just proved that I do not exist to you. You are the only
present life-source, you've said it yourself. You weren't born, you've been passing from one dream to the next, and this is just your current dream. A dream is an illusion,
this is your illusion, an illusion is a lie made to be deceptively alike to a reality, so there must be something real somewhere, but I am not a part of that something. I am
merely a passing image in your current dream. Once you wake up to your reality, and this dream fades from existance, I will be gone. Might as well really talk to you,
the creator of this illusion.


----------
You imply that being alive details such things.

Even if all of this is real, and we are alive, you only have a plan if you acknowledge it as your own. Meaning is slightly different. Art has meaning if you give it meaning,
but no purpose, no plan. For a purpose, if I tell you your purpose, it is not yours unless you take it up for yourself. It is subjective to you. There is no such thing as an
objective goal; by nature, an entity must have a goal, and if that entity died, the goal would with them. Subjective.
----------
I did not say that all beings have purpose, that is a discussion for another time. All I said was I would rather believe I have a purpose than believe that my life is
meaningless. There is no happiness in thinking that you are absolutely and without a doubt worthless to anyone but yourself, that your entire existance is meaningless
and there's not even a reason to be alive. Take you, for example. This is your dream, your illusion, and you're stuck here until you wake up. Do you think you have any
destiny in this dream, do you have a purpose for living? Has your existance, in any way, shape, or form, brought happiness to you at all? If you have no meaning, if you
have no purpose, if you have no plan, then you are worthless. And what's more so, everyone else is too. Your entire world is all about Makaze, you will use whom you will
use, and we should all just stop complaining about it, because all the world needs is you. You've got your values, so we should just keep ours to ourselves and leave you
alone. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound very fun to me. I'd rather believe that my life has meaning, and I can make a difference in the world. If I'm wrong, than oh well. I
tried, and I had a good time doing it. If this is all an illusion, than what is the harm in aiming for a happier illusion?


----------
No, you misunderstood. You didn't 'know about it before it happened', nor do you 'hear about it after'. You made it up as you went along. As far as you know,
there never was an earthquake. There was just a bunch of text and some pictures and video.

If you were shut in a room, you would have absolutely no idea what went on outside. It would be foolish to imagine that there was an earthquake without news of one.
Why should the world itself be any different? Why do you believe it more illogical? 'Because it is inconsistent with my experience.' But experience is not a basis for logic,
honey. You start with a huge set of possibilities (things that are not paradoxical) and you narrow them down based on experience, but that is pragmatic rather than
logical. Logically, you have no reason to assume that something exists if you have no experience of it. Pragmatically, what you can use efficiently is more likely to exist,
whether you can say that it does in black-and-white terms or not. Do not confuse them.
----------
Wait a minute, you say that experience is not a basis for logic. Than on what is logic based? inexperience? if you can't judge the outcome of a situation based on
what the outcome has been before, than on what do you logically base the outcome? According to your statement, logic is making wild guesses at what you think to be
right and hoping it works well from there. If you looked at a situation and said "This won't work, because this was the outcome last time we tried it," then you have used
logic, but if you say to leave experience out of logic, than what you get is "This won't work, because I have no idea wether it will work or not." Or you get "This will
work, because I have no idea wether it will work or not." If you leave experience out of logic, then you are basing logic on inexperience, which in and of itself is illogical.

----------
Not true. I state that we must assume it does not until proven otherwise. It is entirely possible that it does exist, but that is not good enough to assume that it
does. Because every idea tends towards nonexistence (unicorns, dragons, fairy magic, gods), you should assume it first. Logical deduction.
----------
So you're saying that since dragons don't exist, it is only logical to assume that people don't exist as well? In that video you showed me, there is a certain sentence that I
really liked:
"All perception is a gamble. Every type of bigotry, every type of racism, sexism, prejudice, every dogmatic idiology that allows people to kill other people with a clear
concience, every stupid cult, every superstition, religion, every kind of ignorence in the world, results in not realizing our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we
see, we believe our interpretation of it, and we don't even know we're making an interpretation most of the time."
Your perception of the world is that it is not real. That you are all that matters, all else is an illusion, and because of this gamble, you are willing to use people to further
your own convenience. You say that you've caused people to "come close" to suicide, but you admit that you would use people "wether they exist or not." You have told
me before that you would murder me if it meant giving you a chance at getting out of a sticky situation. This is a very dangerous way to live your life, if not for the
"people" around you, then for yourself. Think about it this way: Even if we are an illusion, as you perceive, does that mean we caan't affect you at all? I don't know about
you, but I've "talked" to people in my dreams, I've communicated with people who were in my dreams, and they've communicated with me. Now, if I had a dream that
lasted a lifetime, I would much rather be friends with these dream-people than make enemies of them. That way, if something happened in my dream, say, I went
through a time of depression or something, I would have friends to help me through that time. If I see people merely as rungs on a ladder, only there to help me climb
higher in my illusion, then who's to say that they won't turn their backs on me when I need them most? Using people, even if they are just a part of an illusion, will only
serve to come back to bite you in the end.


----------
Been there, done that. Not the making them commit suicide part, not to my knowledge, but close. And I do not use them because I believe they do not exist.
That is the difference between you and me, I think. I would not treat people differently if they stopped or started existing. I still perceive the same world, existing or not, so
I still feel guilt, even if it was not a real person that I hurt. I dislike reading about fictional atrocities, it is the same thing. Internal conflict, and all of that. Fun...
----------
So you claim to dislike reading fictional atrocities, but don't think it worth preventing such things? If this all is an illusion, then all you are doing is writing a new fictional
atrocity, but if I'm right, then you made someone "come close" to commiting suicide by using them and then throwing them away when you were done with them. You
say you feel guilt, but how much guilt would you have to feel to stop treating people that way? How many people have to "come close" before you realize that you're
really hurting them? And even then, would you stop, or are you really so selfish that you wouldn't think twice about hurting someone if it meant you got something out
of it? I know, I'm an idealist, but really, that's just mean.


----------
I would be feeling guilty? Or not, let's review the facts: they had their life. They let me use it. And then they ended it. All of their own will. Where is the
problem?
----------
The problem lies in you taking advantage of someone else, causing them emotional pain, and treating their life as trash when they kill themselves. You just said you
wouldn't even feel guilty if someone killed themselves because of how you treated them. That, Makaze, is what scares me the most. You are unfeeling, you have no
sympathy for other people's feelings. You tell people what they want to hear if you feel they are useful to you, and gain their trust. When you've gotten all you could get
out of them, you throw them away and don't even cringe when you see you caused them deep emotional pain. You would ruin the life of one who looked up to you if
you felt you profitted from the action. All this sits on your head, you walk through life making enemies and stabbing people in the back so you can get above them, and
it gathers, and grows, until the weight of all you've done is so heavy that you can barely stand it. You realize that you have no friends, that you have pushed away
everyone who would have been there for you, and you have no one to blame but yourself. Just like Kuzco in Emperor's New Groove. Yeah, it's a funny movie, but really,
if you can understand the message it gets across, you see how true it is. You're the top dog, the king of the world, everything begins and ends with you. But beware, the
one you least suspect will be the one to plot your downfall.


----------
What makes you say that he was wrong, and you and I are not?

What makes you say that when we see blue, the person who sees green is not more correct? Majority. You believe that what the majority agrees on is more correct. There
is absolutely no reason to assume this. The majority could be seeing incorrectly as easily as the one could.
----------
Alright, first off, majority is not what sways my decision, as it seems the majority of the world is perfectly fine with homosexuality, and think that christianity is
intolerant, judgemental, and they don't even allow it to be referenced without throwing hissy fits about how intolerant we are. That's the common majority of today,
I don't follow the majority. But as for colors, I'm actually glad you brought that up. I almost put the following video in the last post, but ultimately decided against it. So
now I can use it in response to your post.
[video]http://sermonspice.com/product/25247/red-balloon[/video]


----------
Wrong. You can trust logic, but of course your mind is capable of failing to process logic. Logically, trying to refute the existence of one's own mind proves its
existence, so there is no way to prove that it does not exist. That is not to say that you should trust anything that your mind comes up with, only that it exists.
----------
Ah. So you can trust that your mind exists, but not your hand? How does that work? Your hand is just as a part of you as your mind, why is it acceptable to believe in
the existance of one and not the other? This makes less sense than believing that you can't see anything.


----------
Wrong again. You cannot trust your mind, and you cannot trust your senses. See full-body hallucinations, delusions and other common examples of people
who, according to most, did not experience what their mind told them they did.
----------
So... since these people had illusions, that automatically means that you must also be living in illusion?


----------
Furthermore, the instrument argument from earlier. You really are simple-minded.
----------
Yeah, thanks, that makes me feel great. Why don't you just out-and-out call me a ******? That's what you mean, isn't it? 'Cause, you know, it's impossible for
you to be mistaken about anything.

[/QUOTE]For Yellowstone, it is certainly possible that you dreamed of it. There is nothing you can say to disprove this. As far as I am concerned, you dreamed of it, and
if the real thing exists, then it is not the same as what you dreamed. You believe it is real because it is vivid, but you made it up. Go again and see?

I agree that there is no possible way for me to prove that you did not, but there is no possible way for you to prove that you did, either.

Glad that we agree?[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Well, the evidence that I have far outweighs the evidence that I have not. For one thing, my memories of the experience. Yeah, I've dreamed vivid dreams before,
but I can tell when I'm awake. I was on vacation for a week, we camped out in a cabin right next to Yellowstone river, my mom was yelling at us because she had a
headache and we all started singing "DRIVE INTO THE RIVER, DAD, OH, DRIVE INTO THE RIVER, DAD!" And then I stayed awake all night because it was cold and
every member of my family snores. Loudly. When we went to the park, we drove through the Garden of the Gods and I really like rocks, so that was cool. We stopped
every time we saw a little bit of steam, and we played a game where we would get points for spotting wildlife. Then my sister spotted a herd of Bison with maybe about
forty or fifty animals in it, and I said "That still only counts as one!" As we drove toward the center of the park, we all made up a murder story about an old man named
"Uncle Henry" who was really rich, and had dozens of relatives, and he was going to read his will at Old Faithful geyser, and that's why every other car in the park drove
right past us really fast, without looking at any of the cool stuff. But Poor Uncle Henry never made it to Old Faithful, because two shady looking guys at the side of the
road killed him and hid his body in the indian paint-pots.

When we got to Old Faithful, we almost missed it, we caught the tail end of it as it fizzled out. So we decided to wait around for it to go off again and we went inside,
watched a short documentary on the park, visited the gift-shop, bought some lunch, and then we went back to the geyser. We got good seats and then when it was about
to start shooting off again, this guy in a park ranger uniform with a nametag that said "Brian" came running up to the crowd, and he said "Hey, if you guys wanna see
something really cool, follow me! And then he started running up this trail on the side of the hill, and so everybody was like, "Okay." So about half the people there
went running after Ranger Brian, including me, two of my sisters, and my dad. So we're all running up this hill, and this old lady in front of us trips and falls, and my
dad's like, "hey, are you okay?" and she says "Yeah, I'm fine," really rudely and takes off running again. Then my sister was like "We're gonna trample eachother. I've
had this dream before." And this other lady next to us starts cracking up, and she says "It seems that way, doesn't it?"

When we got to the top of the trail, about a half a mile away, there's this huge geyser going off, and Ranger Brian is like, "This is called Giantess, she's not as faithful as
Old Faithful, but she goes off once every two or three years, she lasts for a couple of days, and she's totally unpredictable. No one knows when she'll crop up. I've seen her
halfway through before, but this is the first time I've seen her start. My shift ended ten minutes ago, but I ain't leavin' yet!" Going around the geyser there was a tiny
boardwalk about three feet across, with no railings, and mud pits and crevices almost directly underneath the walkway, and there were literally like hundreds of people
crowding and pushing trying to get a better veiw, and there was this one lady who kept jumping off the boardwalk and standing on the unstable ground, and Ranger
Brian kept saying over and over again "Ma'am, you need to stay on the boardwalk!" We could see Old Faithful going off in the background, and I even have a video of
the two geysers going off side by side.

When Old Faithful stopped going off, my mom and other sister came up to join us, and my mom freaked out because she has terrible balance, and thought she was
going to be pushed off the board walk. So we went around looking at all the geysers, we took the long way back down to the car. We saw maybe about fifty geysers, and
I got video of every single one, because stuff like that just is really cool to me. My sister kept making fun of me for filming each water spout, but hey, each one was
different. We got back down in time to see Old Faithful go off a third time, and Giantess was there in the background, spouting water for the world to see.
On the drive back through the park to the main gate, there was a Bison walking down the road, and we pulled up behind it, and boy, was it big! We got into the passing
lane and slowly made our way past it, and it looked at us like, meh. But that thing was as big as our van, and could have taken us out if it wanted to. And that was the
first day.

I could go on, but you probably didn't even read everything anyway, so what's the point?
I also have pictures, and video, the evidence of my eyes, the instruments that while not perfect, still exist. The only evidence you have that I didn't is, well, you have no
evidence. You just don't want to believe me.


----------
Pragmatism. Sounds like you need to understand it. Acknowledging that I cannot prove the existence of something actually makes me more efficient at using
it; unlike you, when new aspects arise, I will not be tied down to it by preconceived notions of how the world works. I have no faith, so I am able to adapt far easier and
make far better use of pragmatic concepts rather than 'real' ones.

Pragmatically, it is more efficient to assume, while using them, that a great number of things exist. However, in the pursuit of efficiency, it is also wise to constantly
question everything that I use. Never stop doing a trial and error, always seek a more efficient model. Always doubt, and you will never be truly wrong. More important
than truly right, as I suspect you would bring that up. You do not need to be truly right so long as you move towards efficiency. It is foolish to believe that things are
right simply because you wish to be truly right when pragmatism says that you should move on constantly.
----------
Understanding pragmatism is not the same as following it. I understand the concept, but I just don't think it a practical way to live your life. Also, you say that
acknowledging that you cannot prove the existance of something makes you more efficient at using it. That may be true, but acknowledging that I cannot prove the
nonexistance of something makes me more careful with what I do use. If you had a glass globe of the world that allowed you to change anything in the real oone,
but thought the world didn't exist, you could use the glass globe effectively enough to do whatever you wanted. But if I had a glasss globe of the world that allowed me to
change anything in the real word, but I did think the world existed, I would be a lot more careful to not drop and break the glasss globe.


----------
Pity, how childish you are. One dream does not have to the same as another for them both to be dreams (effectively). Is that so hard to understand?
----------
No, I understand. Is it so hard to understand that just because you had a dream once doesn't mean that your whole life is a dream?

[QUOTE[I will be honest, I laughed. I thought you were smarter than this. I guess not.[/QUOTE]

Dude, low blow... I know I'm not super intelligent, but really, you don't have to be such a jerk. We can't all be as smart as you.


----------
In order for either an illusion or a hallucination to be different from reality, you have to define and prove reality. Because you cannot do this, they are one and
the same. Apparently you completely missed the point of the exercise: to understand that all of your senses can be 'fooled' in such a way that you have no way of
knowing that it is not real.
----------
In order for an illusion to exist, ther must first be a reality. I understood what you were trying to make me see, if anything, you completely missed the point of what
I was saying. Yes, your senses can be fooled to see things that aren't real. That doesn't mean that nothing can possibly be real since your senses might
mess up. I will go back to the instruments again, yes, you can have a faulty instrument. Does that mean that what it measures cannot possibly exist? That, since the
very first instrument made to measure particles or waves didn't work all that great, there must not be such a thing as particles or waves? You say that since some people
have had hallucinations, that some people suffer through illusions, that means that reality must not exist? This is blindness. You are closing your eyes because you do not
want to believe that you can see. You prefer to think that your eyes must be lying to you, so you can live for yourself and not have to worry about taking responsibilty for
your actions.


----------
You cannot lie if the truth is not known, and it cannot be, as all perceptions are subjective. Some people are far sighted, some are near sighted. Some people see
things as larger, some smaller. Some see things faster, others slowly. Green, and blue. An illusion is the concept of a lie, but it is virtually indistinguishable from 'the truth'.
It assumes that reality is not in itself an illusion. This assumption is not warranted based on logic.
----------
Seeing as how lying is stating a non-truth, it is possible to lie without knowing the truth. A lot of people lie without even realizing it. Heck, I could be lying right now
about existing, and I wouldn't even know because I don't know the "truth," which is, I'm not really here right now. But if I don't exist, and I claim to exist, that is lying, as
it stating a non-truth. It is possible to lie without knowing he truth. As for truth being subjective, well, there can only be one truth, either we exist or we don't, there is no
both/and. Either there's a right and wrong, or there's not. Either the balloon is red, or it's not. Either I went to Yellowstone, or I didn't. There is no both/and. Either
something is true, or it's a lie. It's not subjective at all.


----------
Too long, did not read (thoroughly). Having been a Christian, I know the rhetoric. I asked you two simple yes or no questions on top of your personal feelings.
You gave neither a yes nor a no to either, nor did you give your personal opinion of it. I would like answers to them.
----------
Dude, if you didn't read it, how do you know I didn't answer? Look again, actually read what I said, you'll find that I did indeed answer your question with a yes or
no answer. Also, you say that you were a christian once, and so are familiar with the rhetoric, but you might want to take a second look with an open mind. I'm not
saying that you don't really know anything, but there are a lot of "churches" out there who preach everything but the love of God, they're all about the money and the glory
and the "Do not do this or that or some other third thing, You can't have fun or wear a hat or dye your hair or put on make-up or go on a date or wear jewelry or see
movies in theaters or get a tattoo..." and they go on and on about all these stupid rules that you can't break, that really don't even exist at all, and they totally miss the
message of hey, Jesus actually cares two sticks about us, and wants to hang out. If there's anything God can't stand, it's a "holier than thou" attitude, which is what a lot
of christians have.

Anyway, this has taken up too much of my time. Feel free to respond, but don't expect me to continue debating you. I won't give up on you, but I'm not gonna fight with
you either.

----------
If you argue that, then I should value all hypothetical people, because they may exist.

Do you see the problem?
----------
Yes, and if you argue from your perspective, than I should devalue all people, because they might not exist. Do you see the problem?


----------
Wait, what? You are getting ahead of yourself. You have to prove they exist before you can validate the presence of thoughtfulness.

People in dreams show the same thoughtfulness. You must prove that they exist before such 'thoughts' can be called such. You cannot assume that they exist as a means of proving that they do; that is a paradox.
----------
And likewise, you cannot assume they are nonexistant as a way of proving they don't think. That also is a paradox. All your arguments in this debate have begun with "Nothing exists" as the underlying standard of which you argue. You have claimed that since people don't really exist, then the one who thinks is the only real person, therefore, he/she is the only life worth living. That was how this entire debate started out. You did not give any evidence that no one exists, all you did was say since no one does, my argument is valid. You must first prove to me that you don't exist before I will accept that you don't think. Ah, but you might say that you do exist, and I am the hypothetical nonentity in the matter, well, I can state positively and without a doubt that I do indeed exist, you can believe it wether you like it or not. But I know that I exist, so if your position is to believed, you must prove to me that Makaze never existed, and my two grandfathers who died of cancer never existed, and my childhood idol who got stabbed to death by her boyfriend at seventeen never existed, and my dog never existed, and my friend who died in a drug-induced car accident never existed, and the girl standing on the corner of the street, begging for food while I greedily ate a box full of fries when I wasn't even hungry, she never existed. Prove to me that those people didn't exist, and I will believe your theory.


----------
Subconscious. Imagine a dream. All of those things come from somewhere in your mind. Many people would refuse to believe that the things they dream of come from themselves, but are forced to believe it when they have them.

The same is true of reality.
----------
So let me get this straight: You're saying that life can be compared to a dream? That since, in dreams, we think and do things we normally woudn't, that means that in life, we see and hear things we normally wouldn't? I don't think dreams are a very good comparison to life. In dreams, anything can happen. When I was really young, I used to dream in 2-dimension. I don't know why, I never watched a lot of cartoons. I also had a reoccuring dream that giants were after me and turned my family into statues. Sometimes I dreamed that I could fly, sometimes I dreamed that I was being chased by self-aware spiders.

Even today, I dream crazy things. Sometimes I dream about this hill that goes straight up vertically, and for some reason, whenever I dream of this hill, there is always a reason why I must drive all the way up this hill or my sister will die. Sometimes I dream about this video game that is non-existant in real life. I have beat this video game in my dreams several times, except for one level, that is almost impossible to beat. I have dreamed that I'm on a boat, surrounded by water, and then the boat turns into a giant spider that is absolutely bent on eating me alive. I have dreamed that dozens of volcanoes suddenly erupt in the middle of the city, and as we all drive to safety, I realize that we left my mom in a non-existant garage. I have dreamed that I was a little boy from a different family, and I'm mad because I keep saving my youngest brother from drowning, and everybody keeps praising my other little brother for rescuing him. And it doesn't even make sense, because in the dream, I'm wet and he's dry, but nobody seems to notice.

But the point I'm trying to make here is that in dreams, nothing is solid. You can never get on the school bus without knowing for a fact that it won't turn into a monster and eat you. In life, everything happens normally, nothing paranormal ever happens. To say that life is just like dreaming is foolish. In real life, volcanos wouldn't suddenly erupt in inner-city Toledo. In real life, we're not two-dimensional characters. In real life, no boat has ever, ever turned into a spider. You can look it up, it's never happened. To say that you know life isn't real because dreams aren't real is faulty logic at best.


----------
I believe you mean 'believe the same things' and not 'think the same way'.

I have believed as you do, when I was a child. Logic had me grow out of faiths.
----------
Actually, no, I don't mean "believe the same things", I actually do mean "think the same way". You and I do not think the same way. It is very obvious to me that not only do we differ in our personalities and beliefs, we simply do not think alike. I don't have the words to explain this, it's like you think in terms of rainbow colors, nothing really means anything, but everything means something, and some things mean other things and at the same time mean nothing at all. I think in terms of black and white, everything happens for a reason or purpose, nothing is an accident, and all must make sense. I simply cannot grasp this idea that you don't exist, it's mind boggling to say the least. And I certainy didn't make it up because I cannot sufficiently make up an entire argument in defense of a position I cannot grasp. To say I do would be like saying that you must subconsciously believe that things are real, because one of your hypotheticall nonentities believes it, and is willing to argue for it, and you must have thought this up or else it wouldn't exist.


----------
Again with the 'that couldn't have come from me!' If you created this world, then it did come from you, so you should consider the possibility.
----------
Yes, but I know my own strengths, and I can personally attest to the fact that I could not possibly have imagined the world into existance, as I don't even understand all I see in my own community. If I don't understand what's happening in the lives of myy neighbors, than how am I supposed to understand about the millions of lives affected by the 7.0 earthquake that happened in Eastern Japan New Years day? And how am I supposed to understand how I got the news of this earthquake on December 31st? International time zones are another testament to my own inabilty to imagine: If the world is only as I percieve it, than how is it that half the world is asleep when I'm awake, and half the world is awake while I sleep? If the world only exists to please me, shouldn't it all be on the same page as me? And then suppose that neither you nor I exist, and we are only hypothetical nonenteties in the life of another person.What then? If that is the case, than we're not even arguing right now, we're both nothing. No feelings, no purpose, no nothing. We're nothing more than the reflection we see in a puddle, there as the real entity walks by, then gone forever, our sole purpose in life was to be a shadow of the real thing, so he could better live in his illusion. I don't know about you, but not existing sure makes me depressed. I'd rather be alive, with a purpose and a plan.


----------
Also, if the world is your dream, then it does not exist outside of your sphere of experience. The world only exists as far as you can see, hear, taste, smell or touch it. When you move, the world moves with you; you could say that you do not move at all, but stay in place.
----------
So you're saying that the only reason Japan was hit by an earthquake was because I knew it had happened? Show me the logic in that. It is logically impossible to hear about something before it happens, and yet, I'm supposed to believe that this thing happened because I heard about it? No, that's not how my black-and-white thinking works. You hear about things after they happen, that's just what makes sense. You mean to tell me that if I stopped following Fox News on twitter, natural disasters would stop happening, because I no longer heard about them? If I shut myself up in a room with no doors or windows, and spent the rest of my life completely cut off from the rest of the world, then the rest of the world would no longer exist? This, to me, seems more illogical than believing in the existance of people.


----------
So, when you do not understand something, remember that it does not exist anyway, so understanding it is a moot point until it enters your sphere of experience.
----------
Again with you basing your arguments on "Nothing exists". You state that understanding something is a moot point, because that something doesn't exist anyway. Well, what if you're wrong? I'm not trying to tell you what to believe here, I'm asking you to imagine, for a moment, as an example, that you're wrong. Imagine that people are real, that I am real, that your mother is real, that the ground is real, that the sun is real, that the wind is real, that your computer is real, that science and technology are all real. Imagine that your hand is real, and the table you feel is real, and think about all the times you treated someone like non-existant dirt because you thought they weren't real and couldn't feel anyway. Imagine you treated someone as if they were only there to serve your purpose, and so you used them to further your convenience and then when they were no longer useful to you, you threw them away and never looked back. Imagine that they are real, and they were hurt by you. Imagine that one of these people was so hurt by you that they commited suicide. Their "world" ended for them because you used them as a stepping stone to get higher in yours.

Yeah, it doesn't matter if they don't exist, but what if they really do? Would you like yourself if you knew that you had caused a real-life person to commit suicide? Not a non-entity, mind you, a real, honest to goodness person with hopes and dreams and a future and feelings? Imagine that for a moment, and you'll see my position. Only someone who is completely heartless, with no sympathy for other people, would do that, knowing that they just ruined a real life, without any regrets whatsoever. That is the danger in thinking that nothing is real. You might actually be wrong, and then where would you be?


----------
Again, you may well be listening to yourself instead of me right now. Do not sell yourself short, Marushi. At the very least, here is some logic.

The world only exists to you according to your ability to perceive it. To a blind man, the world has no appearance; colors do not exist. To a deaf man, it has no sound. To those who cannot feel, it has no texture, no temperature. Nothing you do can convince them otherwise. If the world exists according to your ability to perceive it, then how can you separate the world from your perception of the world?

You cannot.

Have fun.
----------
Have you ever read the poem about the six blind men from Indostan who stumbled upon an elephant? They all started trying to figure out what it was. One placed his hands on the side of the elephant, and declared that an elephant was just like a wall.
The second felt the tusk, and declared that an elephant was just like a spear.
The third felt the trunk, and declared that an elephant was just like a snake.
The fourth felt one of the legs, and declared that an elephant was just like a tree.
The fifth felt the ear, and declared that an elephant was just like a fan.
And the sixth felt the tail, and declared that an elephant was just like a rope.

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

I'm sure that in your world, in your understanding, you've seen an elephant? But of course, else why would I know of it's existance, as I am only here to further your own convenience? An elephant, as you percieve it, has all these things, but six blind men from Indostan only percieve a part of it. Does their perception of the elephant alter yours?
No, but I'm sure that Scholar number four was dead sure that all an elephant is, is a tree. Perceiving an elephant as a tree does not mean that the rest of the elephant doesn't exist, it only means that the one with the incorrect perception is ignorant to the whole situation, and only understands a part of what he sees.


----------
This relies on the premise that her body exists and is real. The only thing that she knows to exist are her senses. If you touch a table with your hand, does that validate the existence of the table? You might ask me to touch the table and say that because I felt it, the table is there.

Now, what validates the existence of your hand? You might ask me to touch the same table and say that because I felt it, my hand is there.

This is a circular argument. The table is validated by the hand and the hand is validated by the table. In the same way, a child is validated by the sensation or feeling that a child is there. But how can you prove that you have a womb to have a child in? All you have is the feeling. And that does not prove anything.

My mother said the same thing.
----------
Alright, now you say that the evidence of what we both see and feel is irrelavent to the arguement. That seeing a table, touching a table, hearing the sound it makes when you hit it, smelling the scent of the wood (provided it's a wood table, like the one I'm sitting at) when you smell it, are not sufficient proof that the table exists. But you say you can trust your mind, that you know your mind exists, because you think. Your mind is where your senses are proccessed, everytime you touch something with your fingers, a message is sent from your fingertips to your brain that hey, you just touched something. Everytime you hear a noise, a message is sent from your ear canals to your brain that hey, someone's talking to you. Everytime you see an object, a message is sent from your eyes to your brain that hey, that thing over there is moving. All your senses stem from the brain, if you can trust your mind, you can trust what it tells you. If you can trust your senses, you can trust that what you see is real. If you can trust that what you see is real, you can trust that things you do not see are real too. I have never seen India. I've never talked to ayone from India that I know of, I've never seen a picture of India, I've never been to India. But I know that Yellowstone National Park is real. I saw the colors of the mudpits, I felt hot mist from the geysers coming down on me, I smelled the sulfur from the openings in the earth's crust, I heard the sound of water bursting from the earth, I tasted the overpriced school cafeteria food they sold in the semi-affordable places that served food. If I can trust my mind, I can trust these things I saw and felt and smelled and heard and tasted. If I can trust that such a place existed, than I can trust that India also existed. This by itself far outweighs the evidence supporting your theory, that is to say, "There is no evidence, I just believe it." There is no possible way for you to prove that I never went to Yellowstone, while I can support you with not only detailed descriptions of the park, but pictures and videos taken at the place. If you can see the pictures, you know that your mind percieves the pictures. If your mind exists, than what it percieves also exists. Therefore, I went to Yellowstone.


----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

These are all the same reason.

"Because I feel it is so."

Please review the above link and review why it is faulty to assume that a thing exists simply because you feel that it does.
----------
I reveiwed it, and now please bear with me for a second. It might be faulty to assume a thing exists just because I feel it to be so, but isn't also faulty to ignore the evidence of what you feel, assume that nothing exists anyway, and live your life by that method? Like I stated earlier, there is more evidence to support my theory than there is to support yours, just look at all the universe itself! The universe has no width, it goes on forever. The universe has no depth, it goes on forever. If you leave God out of the picture, there is no traceable beginning to the universe, it has been forever. Even by the big bang theory, there has to have been something to bang together in the first place. There is no all-stop ending to the universe, it will go on forever. Even if our galaxy is destroyed, it is impossible to destroy an unending field of everything that ever existed. To take something like the universe, and say "Pah! Such a thing must not be real, because I myself am the only real thing" is like putting a murderer on trial and saying to the jury "We don't believe the victim ever existed, we don't believe the body ever was found, we don't believe that there was a murder weapon, we don't think there were any fingerprints, and we choose to ignore that the accused has no alibi. Therefore, we're going to let him go on the grounds that he didn't commit any murder." There is more evidence to support the murder of the victim than there is evidence that the victim never existed. I have said this before, prove to me that nothing exists, and I will believe you.


----------
Indeed, this computer does not exist. It would work the same way in a dream as it does now and it has done so when I have dreamed of it, so I have little to no reason to separate its 'existence' from that dreaming experience. And neither do you.
----------
But what if I had a dream that my laptop came alive and ran away with my DS? Would that make the one in 'real life' behave the same way? If life is but a dream, like you say, than what draws the line between my laptop performing the way it was built and it laughing at me when I tell it a joke? The dream world is an unreliable place to be, and I would not want to live there. To say that real life and a dream are parallell is foolishness. Or has your computer laughed at a joke recently?


----------
Also see: hallucinations, delusions, and why they are the same as reality.
----------
Alright, looked them up.

il·lu·sion
[ih-loo-zhuhn]
noun
1.
something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.
3. an instance of being deceived.
4. Psychology . a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion), that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality. [/SPOILER]
[SPOILER]hal·lu·ci·na·tion
[huh-loo-suh-ney-shuh[IMG]n]
noun
1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.
3. a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; delusion. [/SPOILER]Both words mean "something that is false, not pertaining to reality."



Illusion even states over and over again, that it is a deception and distortion of what really is, to make you believe in something that is not, namely, a lie. Therefore, in order for something to be an illusion, there must be something that is real, as illusion is a lie, there must also be a truth. You can't have a false reality without a reality. You can't have a deception without a truth. So you just told me to use the word "lie" to describe your theory. Well, I am. The notion that all is false, the idea that nothing truly exists, is a lie created to trap people into believing that there is no truth. I'm not saying that you created it, I'm just saying that you bought into it, and now defend it, not even knowing that you defend a lie.


----------
I am bisexual. How do you feel about this? Am I going to hell? Do I deserve it?
----------
I will tell you what I tell every bisexual/homosexual friend: While the bible states specifically that homsexuality is sin, it also states that every man, woman and child have sinned, and not one sin is any worse than any other sin. Therfore, I have told a lie. The bible states that lying is a sin. Therefore, I have sinned just as much as you have, being bisexual, and we both have sinned just as much as Adolf Hitler, having the blood of six-million people on his hands. The bible also says that when a person dies, his spirit lives on, and must go somewhere. God created Heaven so we could have a place to go when we die, and he created Hell so he could have a prison to stick the Devil in. Now, the thing about God is, he's holy. It is impossible for sin to even look at him. So then all these people who sin can't get into heaven. God does not take pleasure in the punishment of the decieved, nor does he wish them to get sent to Hell. But there is no other option. Either you get into heaven, sinless, or you walk straight into Hell.

So God, who does not like seeing people walk into Hell, creates an escape plan so we can make it into Heaven. He knows that we can't get in on our own, he knows that I am a natural liar, practically trained in the art of deception and I lie without a second thought, so what does he do? He sends his son down to earth to live a life without sinning, so that he can be the ultimate sacrifice, taking our sins upon himself and dying with them on his head, so that we can exchange the sin we commited for the amazing opportunity to be with the Creator in paradise. All we have to do is admit that we sinned and that Jesus saved us, and believe, truly believe, that God raised Jesus up again, triumphant over Death and sin, and we are saved from Hell.

See, a lot of people look at things the wrong way. They think that God is a big mean jerk that says "Do what I say or I'll throw you in Hell!" When in reality, what he's doing is saying "Hey, you know that road you're on? That road leads to Hell." Imagine a father teaching his son to drive. The father says "If you drive drunk, you could hit a tree and die." And the son turns to his father and says "Are you threatening me with a tree? You're saying "Unless you do what I say, I'll drive you into a tree!" Who do you think you are, driving innocent people into trees just 'cause they disobey your meaningless rules!" That wouldn't make any sense, but that's how people think God is. He didn't say "Do what I say or I'll throw you in Hell!" He said "If you live like that, you're gonna die." So, in other words, yes, I do believe that if you keep on living in sin, you will end up in Hell. That's why I work so hard to explain my faith to you. Believe it or not, Makaze, I like you as a person. I think you're intelligent, logical, and funny. I don't want to see you drive into a tree and die. That's why I'm still typing this out at 12:30 at night, even though I'm tired and arguing makes me stomach-sick. lol, it may sound cheesy, but I'm not giving up on you, even on the off-chance that you don't exist. Hey, if nothing is real anyway, then what's the harm in trying for a happier illusion? But if I'm right, and you do exist, than I'm not going to risk your well-being just so I can live for myself.[/SPOILER]

I saw it just before you changed your avvy. Decided to save it for the memories. =D

[/SPOILER]

So...they deleted my thread. :|

Okay~! And thank you again, that was really nice of you to offer too! :)

Oh OK, thanks! lol
Well, I was thinking of another Namine picture but I can't really find the right one...

Hi, your avatar kinda cought my eye. So anyway, I'm Tears into Roses , but you can see that from my username of course but still, hi. lol