Intriguing... I'm away for a day or two, and this discussion progresses 8 pages 
As a response to Arcanus, i knew that many here would take dagda's theory as an existence vs. non-existence argument, which is why i had the foresight to respond to the theory with my slightly off-topic post. I was going to post in regards to the theory itself some time ago, but never got a chance. Amazingly... it seems that a solipsist (Which assumes that the self can be known, and that it is the only thing which can be known) missed my post on the existence of the interactable.
So, i respond to solipsism. I actually used to be a solipsist... until i recognized that everything i can sense (and even a great deal that i cannot sense) exist. I can be certain that this discussion exists because i can interact with it. It may exist as a figment of my own vivid imagination, or as a game played by super-advanced creatures, or even as the leg fur of a green-stripped bat-tiger with superpowers... but the fact remains that it exists.
This too can be directed at the self, which could exist in any form imaginable (and possibly many unable to be imagined). One cannot be certain of anything but that their reality exists... however, one must be aware that their viewpoint determines their reality (especially in regards to themself). I see the world from my viewpoint, as you see it from yours, as an ant sees the world from its. Assuming of course... that any of us can see.
All of our knowledge is assumptions... All our evidence circumstantial... All our faith unprovable...
That which we call "knowledge", is but an assumption of correctness, and we are often wrong.
Everything we declare "evidence", happened under conditions (or circumstances), and is therefore circumstantial.
What we feel is true by "faith", is to have absolute confidence in circumstantial knowledge, and is therefore even more fallacious than knowledge or evidence alone.
But our viewpoints exist, therefore we exist, so that which we can interact with exists, thus that which created us exists, and that which (might have) created our creator exists, until you come to "the real world", and that which created it exists.
Existence is the single truth which all things can be certain of... which form we exist in is not so easily known, nor even that i am completely myself. This one truth, that all of our knowledge is the assumption that we are correct, is the basis of existentialism. Philosophers, those who are of other schools of thought, and those deeply anti-philosophy: There is no question about wether we exist or not (we do
)... it is in which way that is the true question.
---------------------------
@Jon Paul: of course 'reality' exists (read above)... but in which form is the question.
As a response to Arcanus, i knew that many here would take dagda's theory as an existence vs. non-existence argument, which is why i had the foresight to respond to the theory with my slightly off-topic post. I was going to post in regards to the theory itself some time ago, but never got a chance. Amazingly... it seems that a solipsist (Which assumes that the self can be known, and that it is the only thing which can be known) missed my post on the existence of the interactable.So, i respond to solipsism. I actually used to be a solipsist... until i recognized that everything i can sense (and even a great deal that i cannot sense) exist. I can be certain that this discussion exists because i can interact with it. It may exist as a figment of my own vivid imagination, or as a game played by super-advanced creatures, or even as the leg fur of a green-stripped bat-tiger with superpowers... but the fact remains that it exists.
This too can be directed at the self, which could exist in any form imaginable (and possibly many unable to be imagined). One cannot be certain of anything but that their reality exists... however, one must be aware that their viewpoint determines their reality (especially in regards to themself). I see the world from my viewpoint, as you see it from yours, as an ant sees the world from its. Assuming of course... that any of us can see.
All of our knowledge is assumptions... All our evidence circumstantial... All our faith unprovable...
That which we call "knowledge", is but an assumption of correctness, and we are often wrong.
Everything we declare "evidence", happened under conditions (or circumstances), and is therefore circumstantial.
What we feel is true by "faith", is to have absolute confidence in circumstantial knowledge, and is therefore even more fallacious than knowledge or evidence alone.
But our viewpoints exist, therefore we exist, so that which we can interact with exists, thus that which created us exists, and that which (might have) created our creator exists, until you come to "the real world", and that which created it exists.
Existence is the single truth which all things can be certain of... which form we exist in is not so easily known, nor even that i am completely myself. This one truth, that all of our knowledge is the assumption that we are correct, is the basis of existentialism. Philosophers, those who are of other schools of thought, and those deeply anti-philosophy: There is no question about wether we exist or not (we do
)... it is in which way that is the true question.---------------------------
@Jon Paul: of course 'reality' exists (read above)... but in which form is the question.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
