Just inflicting pain on yourself proves nothing. If the illusion is elaborate enough, then feeling pain would be just another aspect of the mirage. No, so far no one has proved this reality.In ordinary life, Ockham's razor is superior to proof anyhow.All other things being equal, do I have a beard? I could consider the relative effort and likelihood of growing and maintaining a beard vs the effort required to keep facial hair from growing out. Instead, I can just say that people of my gender rarely have a beard, therefore it is likely I don't either. Thanks Ockham's Razor!
Ockham's Razor: You'll never find a faster, more probable shave. ©
It's not always superior to direct observation, but it's superior to proof.
I'm surreal, which is like real+
Isn't it?
You know, it's like someone that is so real that they are "sur"real.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PROVE THAT YOU ARE REAL!!!Make me.
Well, I seem to be hallucinating you now, so I guess I did make you.
So... you're welcome. Or, I'm sorry. One of those two.
You can be sorry for that terrible pun. Definitely a robot.
Oh, I definitely made you. Look, here's another you now:
{waves}
Totally a robot. I can see the strings.
There are... no strings on me.
I'm calling it: Ultron will go down in one of two ways. Either he'll be tied up somehow, or he'll be eaten by a giant whale.
of course im real, how else do you expect your toast to bypass DR?
I'm calling it: Ultron will go down in one of two ways. Either he'll be tied up somehow, or he'll be eaten by a giant whale.
I talked it over with M. Night and decided the most unexpected thing would be to show the whale, but then at the last minute, kill Ulty with a bowl of petunias. What a twist, eh? Eh?
We'll run it by test audiences soon. If that doesn't work, I'll go back to my original ending: Ulty tries to escape in the Quinnjet, but they take him out by firing an Alan Tudyk through his metal chest.
I'm calling it: Ultron will go down in one of two ways. Either he'll be tied up somehow, or he'll be eaten by a giant whale.I talked it over with M. Night and decided the most unexpected thing would be to show the whale, but then at the last minute, kill Ulty with a bowl of petunias. What a twist, eh? Eh?
Oh no, not again.
It's not always superior to direct observation, but it's superior to proof.Just inflicting pain on yourself proves nothing. If the illusion is elaborate enough, then feeling pain would be just another aspect of the mirage. No, so far no one has proved this reality.In ordinary life, Ockham's razor is superior to proof anyhow.All other things being equal, do I have a beard? I could consider the relative effort and likelihood of growing and maintaining a beard vs the effort required to keep facial hair from growing out. Instead, I can just say that people of my gender rarely have a beard, therefore it is likely I don't either. Thanks Ockham's Razor!
Ockham's Razor: You'll never find a faster, more probable shave. ©
I was engaged in debate with someone on another message board years ago, and I realised that talking with them was utterly pointless when they said, without irony, that empiricism had been disproved long ago. Then again, they were a self-professed pyrrhonist, so they didn't know anything anyway. :P
I have the belief that nothing we see around us is real, and everything we see is just an elaborate illusion. Prove that you are real.
If everything is an illusion, it not the reality that is flawed but your perception of said reality.
You are unable to see the truth.
Otherwise, all of us talking to you would be illusions, making you a schizophrenic.
I was engaged in debate with someone on another message board years ago, and I realised that talking with them was utterly pointless when they said, without irony, that empiricism had been disproved long ago. Then again, they were a self-professed pyrrhonist, so they didn't know anything anyway. :PIt's not always superior to direct observation, but it's superior to proof.Just inflicting pain on yourself proves nothing. If the illusion is elaborate enough, then feeling pain would be just another aspect of the mirage. No, so far no one has proved this reality.In ordinary life, Ockham's razor is superior to proof anyhow.All other things being equal, do I have a beard? I could consider the relative effort and likelihood of growing and maintaining a beard vs the effort required to keep facial hair from growing out. Instead, I can just say that people of my gender rarely have a beard, therefore it is likely I don't either. Thanks Ockham's Razor!
Ockham's Razor: You'll never find a faster, more probable shave. ©
He's technically right, but that's because empiricism and relying on empirical evidence are not the same thing.
Empiricism is the theory that all, or most, knowledge is derived from sense-experience. And, for the most part, that has been disproved; most of human knowledge is passed on without sense-experience of what led to it being involved.
lorddeath
kill them all
kill them all
kill them all
start with the robots
I was engaged in debate with someone on another message board years ago, and I realised that talking with them was utterly pointless when they said, without irony, that empiricism had been disproved long ago. Then again, they were a self-professed pyrrhonist, so they didn't know anything anyway. :PIt's not always superior to direct observation, but it's superior to proof.Just inflicting pain on yourself proves nothing. If the illusion is elaborate enough, then feeling pain would be just another aspect of the mirage. No, so far no one has proved this reality.In ordinary life, Ockham's razor is superior to proof anyhow.All other things being equal, do I have a beard? I could consider the relative effort and likelihood of growing and maintaining a beard vs the effort required to keep facial hair from growing out. Instead, I can just say that people of my gender rarely have a beard, therefore it is likely I don't either. Thanks Ockham's Razor!
Ockham's Razor: You'll never find a faster, more probable shave. ©
He's technically right, but that's because empiricism and relying on empirical evidence are not the same thing.
Empiricism is the theory that all, or most, knowledge is derived from sense-experience. And, for the most part, that has been disproved; most of human knowledge is passed on without sense-experience of what led to it being involved.
As we all know, technically correct is the best kind of correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the belief that nothing we see around us is real, and everything we see is just an elaborate illusion. Prove that you are real.
I do not believe that you actually believe this. Prove to me that you believe nothing you see is real.
I thought this was going to be a thread about posting selfies.
Initially so did I. A thread in the same vein as "pics or you're a sock puppet."
I thought this was going to be a thread about posting selfies.Initially so did I. A thread in the same vein as "pics or you're a sock puppet."
Hrm... That horse still whinnies... No beating it for me.
Just inflicting pain on yourself proves nothing. If the illusion is elaborate enough, then feeling pain would be just another aspect of the mirage. No, so far no one has proved this reality.
Actually, it DOES prove something.
Inflict enough pain, and you'll see questioning whether it is real or not doesn't matter.
All that matters is that it feels real enough for you not to be able to really concentrate on anything else.
Therefore, all other questions fall as foolish as nothing else matters at that point.
Even if you think the pain is an illusion, if you feel it, it is not an illusion (maybe injuries could be, but pain that you feel, or any other feelings are real enough for it to be a stupid question to ask whether or not it is or not...and if you still ask if it is relavant...you need more pain).
Cogito ergo dolores capitis habeo.
You guys realize that the best response to this thread would to have not replied, right?
The OP asked for proof of existence, not intelligence. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." – Conan of Cimmeria
Yay Conan!
~knocks on the screen~ Ummmm... Can someone please let me out? I don't like it in here. All someone has to do it turn off the power button and them I am gon------
~Black screen~
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is precisely why we shouldn't let those Signers into the city anymore!
Also, several of you seem to be due in your taxes.
I was engaged in debate with someone on another message board years ago, and I realised that talking with them was utterly pointless when they said, without irony, that empiricism had been disproved long ago. Then again, they were a self-professed pyrrhonist, so they didn't know anything anyway. :PIt's not always superior to direct observation, but it's superior to proof.Just inflicting pain on yourself proves nothing. If the illusion is elaborate enough, then feeling pain would be just another aspect of the mirage. No, so far no one has proved this reality.In ordinary life, Ockham's razor is superior to proof anyhow.All other things being equal, do I have a beard? I could consider the relative effort and likelihood of growing and maintaining a beard vs the effort required to keep facial hair from growing out. Instead, I can just say that people of my gender rarely have a beard, therefore it is likely I don't either. Thanks Ockham's Razor!
Ockham's Razor: You'll never find a faster, more probable shave. ©
He's technically right, but that's because empiricism and relying on empirical evidence are not the same thing.
Empiricism is the theory that all, or most, knowledge is derived from sense-experience. And, for the most part, that has been disproved; most of human knowledge is passed on without sense-experience of what led to it being involved.
It isn't just that, though thats probably the biggest knock against empiricism. There is a larger problem.
Without appropriate context and understanding, reliance on empirical evidence can lead one to incorrect understanding.
The biggest example in my mind, is physics. With good sir Isaac. Newtonian physics literally got us to the moon. Even today, we still teach newtonian physics. But he is technically wrong, particularly in the case of gravity. Einstein showed us that. But reality of gravitational physics is so outside our understanding of the world around us, that we teach the (technically) incorrect newtonian physics until high level education. It still works even if it is technically incorrect.
Emprical evidence is limited by our ability to observe, and there are fundamental problems with our ability to observe that may not be overcome ever let alone soon. Enter mr Heisenberg. There are things we literally cannot observe. This is not a function of inadequate observational tools. We are simply unable. Its almost like we reached the end of the programming in the computer simulation that is our universe. Nope, nothing to see here, move along.
Seriously, think about it. Imagine if you were, for instance, blind and deaf. Now imagine no one communicated what things were to you. You had to figure it out on your own. How exactly would you learn the difference between a bench, a bench shaped rock, and a predatory animal that was shaped like a bench? How exactly would you know that the chair you are sitting on, is actually there permanently, instead of say, placed under you by some extra dimensional being every time you sat down as a giant lab experiment?
Empirical evidence is still the best we have in terms of figuring things out, but our greatest advancements have almost always been from imagination, not observation. How often does it take years if not decades to verify the work of the great scientists of history? (often). But its their imagination that creates the foundation for future experimentation, not observation of existing data. Because their imagination gave new context for observation, and they just so happened, to be right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm not real then please whomever is imagining me imagine me as richer and better looking.
Isaac Newton also had a literal belief in the Bible, so what does that tell you?
Isaac Newton also had a literal belief in the Bible, so what does that tell you?
Not to work with mercury in an unventilated lab.
also, Issaac Newton was a brilliant man who belived X, you should believe X is an excellent argument for taking up alchemy. His fascination with numerology is why we have the useless indigo in ROYGBIV
Are you going to criticise him for his fascination with falling apples next?also, Issaac Newton was a brilliant man who belived X, you should believe X is an excellent argument for taking up alchemy. His fascination with numerology is why we have the useless indigo in ROYGBIV
Never!
That wig though...
TDIL I've probably already absorbed an incredible amount of gamma rays via Sophie B. Hawkins radiation. {awaits inevitable transformation into Feminist Hippeh Hulk}
I will acknowledge that BigNorseWolf is real. My mind is far too...tasteful to invent him.
Philosphers: 2000 years.
Philistine Lupine: 30 seconds.
NO! YOU PROVE THAT I'M REAL!!
I only have to explain myself to my wife and my daughter (once she's old enough). If you're having existential issues, that's on you.
Thing is, if you can prove to your daughter that you never existed, both you and she will disappear, Randarak.
Why would I want to do that? I am content with the evidence brought before me that I exist (besides, I hurt too much at times for me to think that I don't). Over analysis just wastes one's time and annoys the analyzer.
I have the belief that nothing we see around us is real, and everything we see is just an elaborate illusion. Prove that you are real.
If existence is an illusion, who is being deceived?