Prove That You Are Real!


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
LordDeath wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm surreal, which is like real+

Isn't it?


Scribbling Rambler wrote:

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.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
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:


<POP!> {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?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.


J1000 Whedonator wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
LordDeath wrote:
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 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


LordDeath wrote:
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.


Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
LordDeath wrote:
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 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

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


MagusJanus wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
LordDeath wrote:
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 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

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LordDeath wrote:
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.

You only say that because you haven't done the test. Do it, and your view of reality is guaranteed to change. If the agonising pain, the blood, all the people telling you what a crazy dumbass you are doesn't do it, the hospital bills sure will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordDeath wrote:
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.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
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."


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
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.


LordDeath wrote:
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).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
LordDeath wrote:
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).

That's why the classic test for dreaming is pinching yourself. :)


You guys realize that the best response to this thread would to have not replied, right?

Silver Crusade

Cogito ergo consume.


Cogito ergo dolores capitis habeo.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
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

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
You guys realize that the best response to this thread would to have not replied, right?

Not really. I had quite a bit of fun with my reply.


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.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
LordDeath wrote:
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 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

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?


Paizo the Pirate! wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:

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.

This is a popular misunderstanding. Einstein did not prove Newton "wrong" any more than Hawking did the same to Einstein.

The Newtonian model is a fine model for the macro world. In 99.99999 percent of cases, it will get the job done. Einstein and Hawking merely extend and refine the Newtonian model to corner cases of greater and greater extremes.


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

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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?


LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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?

Never!

That wig though...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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?
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Never!

That wig though...

If you were anybody in society you wore a powdered wig. And if it was good enough for George Washington, the Father of our Country, it's good enough for you!


TDIL I've probably already absorbed an incredible amount of gamma rays via Sophie B. Hawkins radiation. {awaits inevitable transformation into Feminist Hippeh Hulk}


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.


LordDeath wrote:
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?

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Prove That You Are Real! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.