The Stage is Yours.

[Reforged]

If you go by that logic theres no reason for me to think any of this is real. For all I know I'm drugged to the eyeballs in a padded cell.
However if I was to act as if that were true then I would be making a huge assumption.
Normal human beings act on what they can see, hear, taste and touch and their ability to make sense of what knowledge is gained through these faculties. Until I am given reason to doubt these faculties then these are what I shall depend on to discern reality. If I do not use these faculties then I am left without any tools to discern reality, that is not acceptable.
Someone who decides he doesn't need these faculties to discern what is real is a fool who has left themselves deaf, dumb and blind to the world around them.
(P.S. Giving kudos to someone brave enough to actually continue the debate doesn't count as continuing the debate yourself fr0d0. ;-) )

No, you're missing my point.

I'm not arguing about whether you should think that there are external objects that accurately correspond to your sensory perceptions. I'm saying that you never directly experience another object; all you ever have are subjective experiences (sensory phenomena, etc.).

Suppose there's an apple on the table. You don't get to access the apple. All you get is some kind of visual experience that you interpret as being an apple. But that isn't the apple; it's merely an image of it. All we ever get are images of things.

If I were making an argument motivated by the Matrix, I'd say that you should then choose to doubt the existence of the apple. But I'm not arguing that--at least, not yet. I'm asking how you distinguish "imagination" from "senses"; they're both constructs of your mind, so far as I can tell.

What's the difference between seeing the image of an apple, and dreaming a dream so realistic that you think you're seeing the image of an apple?

(My guess: you're going to say something like, "Seeing is what happens when certain physiological phenomena occur; a photon strikes the back of your eye," etc.)

Sorry, did I just slip into the twighlight zone? What would you define as directly experiencing another object then? Would we have to perform some sort of surgery so the object actually makes contact with the brain? I mean seriously Clive, come on. Before you start announcing what isn't directly experiencing another object at least give us some idea of what is. I'd come up with the description of physically seeing an object and the data being relayed to our brains but we both know what you're going to do. You're going to say "Ah-ha, but how do you know thats not your brain imagining seeing that object?". Then I'll answer "Well you have other peoples testimony and your own senses" then you'll go "AH-HA but how do you know they're not imagined too?" which of course the only answer is "We can never be 100% sure that the reality we are seeing through our senses is reality as it truly is but it is the only one we experience and therefore we must accept the sensory data as it is presented to us. The only other alternatives are to either decide what we want to be real regardless of the evidence or to live in complete denial of everything. I only see one of those three choices as being sane."
I apologize if I am incorrect in my prediction of where this is heading but I've had this discussion quite a few times and get rather sick of seeing the same thing over and over again.

And I'm very sorry but:

What's the difference between seeing the image of an apple, and dreaming a dream so realistic that you think you're seeing the image of an apple?

Is dangerously close to:
"Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"

Both of these quotes are essentially asking how can you trust your senses completely. The only difference is Morpheus is making the point we can never be completely sure whether this is all a dream or not and from what I can tell you're heading toward saying the only thing we can establish is real is our thoughts and feelings so we should trust those before trusting whatever evidence our senses obtain thereby validating your decision to trust in your feelings that your religion is true despite there being zero evidence to present that case.
How am I doing so far? Am I in the ballpark?