NationStates Jolt Archive

Yet another thread to post your philosophical thinkings! Get your philosophies out people!

Some of mine:

Fighting fire with fire makes the fire grow bigger.

If you cannot be honest with yourself, you cannot be honest with anyone else.

My favorite from other people:

Religion is the opiate of the masses~Karl Marx

Religion is the opiate of the masses~Karl Marx
You needn't be so narrow: easy answers are the opium of the masses.

Fighting fire with fire makes the fire grow bigger.
Only until it consumes all its fuel; fighting fire with fire makes it go out quicker.

Religion is the opiate of the masses~Karl Marx
No, that would be television. Nothing has ever managed to enthrall so many as successfully.

"Moralists have no place in an art gallery."
- Han Suyin

I truly believe that art is art is art is art, no matter how you see it.

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire

"In threads about philosophy,
People act smarter than they are;
It will only end in catastrophy,
So let's just go to the bar." - Keruvalia

Things are secondary to relationships. Relationships occur between things but those things' own existence, nature and qualities stems from the relationships from which the things each/all arose.
If there is a first cause, all since then is relationships giving rise to things and relationships arising from the things arisen from relationships. In the absence of first cause the conclusion is the same minus the qualifier 'since then'...

Einstein demonstrated that 'wheres' are not absolute spatial values but rather relatedness - our only value for 'location X' is it's relationship to 'locations not X'. I view the underlying principal of this being relationships predominance over things and that this predomainance is universal.

I know to a lot of people this seems like a trivia, but in fact it does seem (so far as I can tell) give rise to different understandings than seem to stem from privledging things over relationships between and amongst things.

"In threads about philosophy,
People act smarter than they are;
It will only end in catastrophy,
So let's just go to the bar." - Keruvalia
I hear ya: http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/frown3.gifhttp://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/frown3.gif

Religion is the opiate of the masses~Karl Marx
Opiate is religion for the masses.

Opiate is religion for the masses.
XD Haha...good twist on the old bearded madman's words.

"In threads about philosophy,
People act smarter than they are;
It will only end in catastrophy,
So let's just go to the bar." - Keruvalia
:eek:

sig'd

where is this bar, btw?

Yet another thread to post your philosophical thinkings! Get your philosophies out people!

Some of mine:

Fighting fire with fire makes the fire grow bigger.

If you cannot be honest with yourself, you cannot be honest with anyone else.

My favorite from other people:

Religion is the opiate of the masses~Karl Marx
If you're going to use the word philosophy you had better give us reasoning for all of these lines.

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
-Voltaire

:eek:

sig'd

where is this bar, btw?
Post #8.

*Drinks post #8*

I cam across an interesting thought in John Gray's Straw Dogs:

Natural happiness is beyond the reach of most humans and animals, which is why they tend to take drugs, given the opportunity.

The USA is wedded to the pursuit of happiness. To admit that happiness can only be found in drugs for the majority of people would cause its society to collapse; this is why she is the main crusader in the war against drugs.

I cam across an interesting thought in John Gray's Straw Dogs:

Natural happiness is beyond the reach of most humans and animals, which is why they tend to take drugs, given the opportunity.

The USA is wedded to the pursuit of happiness. To admit that happiness can only be found in drugs for the majority of people would cause its society to collapse; this is why she is the main crusader in the war against drugs.

I think too many people are convinced that somewhere, happiness exists. It doesn't exist. Happiness happens.

I think too many people are convinced that somewhere, happiness exists. It doesn't exist. Happiness happens.
Misery is more fun though.

I think too many people are convinced that somewhere, happiness exists. It doesn't exist. Happiness happens.
Happiness happens happenings, perhaps? :p

But seriously, happiness is a point of view.

"When in doubt, screw it. When not in doubt, get in doubt." - the Principia Discordia

"Never run out of whiskey." - P J O'Rourke

"Opiates are the mass of my religion." - the Brag of the Subgenius

"Mnnnngghhh.. nggh" - Grigori Rasputin

Well, there's always plenty of people to quote out there, so I'll just add my own and people can decide if they are worth noting or not:

"The people with the most problems are the ones least equipped to deal with them."

"Hell hurts and heaven heals
Who knows how we do it

With a hope that's bright as a guiding light
Well always find a way through it"

Nietzsche is dead. - God

No, that would be television. Nothing has ever managed to enthrall so many as successfully.

And when you combine religion and television?

But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

I believe that human freedom is the most valuable element in human life, and should be preserved and defended at all costs, for without it life is worthless and not worth living.

The most benevolent master is nevertheless an usurper and a tyrant.

No, that would be television. Nothing has ever managed to enthrall so many as successfully.

Indeed.

Religion cannot fairly be described as universally taking the role of an opiate; Liberation Theology, for instance, is an exception.

Christians need not apply - Ruffy

And when you combine religion and television?
Pat Robertson.

Fighting fire with fire makes the fire grow bigger.


Haven't we been through all this before? Have you not learnt what a firebreak is yet?

Pat Robertson.

You just made my brain hurt.

You just made my brain hurt.
*looks at check list*

Wake up http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/correct.gif
Eat fatty foods http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/correct.gif
Drink alone http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/correct.gif
Make fried chicken http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/correct.gif
Hurt random people http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/correct.gifhttp://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/correct.gifhttp://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/correct.gif :D
Get high - Gimme a minute..

"Think for yourself and question authority"

a great quote from Timothy Francis Leary:D

Haven't we been through all this before? Have you not learnt what a firebreak is yet?

It's what fire does when it's been working for a while. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

And when you combine religion and television?
JAAAAAYSUS!:p

Save for the a priori facts that:

a) Something exists, and
b) A consciousness, I, exists to perceive the fact of (a),

it is not possible to possess objective, true knowledge. You can possess true knowledge empirically or in context, meaning that you can possess knowledge that is absolutely true contingent upon the veracity of the unprovable premises (reality of the perceptions) it is based on.

This is, in a way, the solution to the problem of skepticism: no, you can't know anything. Yes, it does matter, objectively; but only as an epistemological motive. Within the framework of what you perceive, regardless of the metarelevant question of whether it is objectively real or not, you can and must pursue absolute knowledge. The fact of philosophical skepticism provides a larger context and driving motive within which to seek knowledge: that you must seek first and foremost to verify your perceptions, as much as is logically and pragmatically possible, because that is the only way to gain maximally objective knowledge, within the sphere of egoistic causality: of that which can logically pertain to you.

If you theoretically pushed the boundary of knowledge as far as possible, and have reduced your 'box' of perceptions to its basic premises, and can disprove no more, yet it remains true (per definition unknown to you) that all of it is objectively unreal, that is itself a non-provable, non-meaningful, and inherently nonrelevant situation, because it is outside the causal sphere of the self. If the perceptions of the consciousness known a priori to be real, the actions of it, and the actions on it within its perceptive framework not only are not, but cannot be affected by the objective unreality of the consciousness' sensory input, the issue logically can't be relevant.

It isn't possible to know anything but the fact of one's own existence objectively, so we have to settle for a lesser goal: maximal objectivity of knowledge, within the boundary of the absolute empirical limit: the point at which the entirety of your perceptions, assumptions, sensations, etc. have been proved, disproved, and accounted for down to the absolute boundary of what is logically possible - point at which you have essentially reduced your perceived universe to first premises.

After that, the question of whether the entire perceived universe within the outermost possible empirical limits is objectively true becomes meaningless, because the potentially illusory world can't be separated from the absolutely known-to-exist consciousness, and the acausal possibility of an external objective 'real world' is logically impossible to be related to anything known to be real, and thus a rational nonconcept.

So, given the idea that the absolute limit of empirical knowledge within the global framework of perceptions is also the absolute limit of meaningful doubt, and that this limit is theoretical, rather like absolute zero, the ultimate motive becomes the search to eliminate all illusions it is possible and meaningful to eliminate in pursuit of maximally objective truth, the greatest possible philosophical and epistemological goal. This can only be accomplished by science, not coincidentially a shorter synonym of empirical epistemology.

Science can be seen like laying the bricks of a house; it isn't possible for us to see the foundation, (the true, objective universe, whatever it may or may not be) but the fact of our (or really, my) true existence means that the inviolately invisible 'foundation' at least holds up; it can then be seen that the duty of the builders (the seekers of knowledge), is to lay the bricks starting from the basic surface of the limit of visibility, the top of the invisible foundation (and the absolute empirical limit) and creating a structure with minimal gaps between bricks (assumptions), in pursuit of the 'building' that is maximally stable and efficient (objective) given the surface topography of the invisible foundation.

Faith, the ultimate enemy of objectivity, can be seen as a wilfull refusal to seek objective knowledge and reduce the universe to first premises; it rests upon the assumed and the arbitrary, and can be likened to building your house with an enormous air-filled gap between the first floor and the invisible foundation, and assuming that all the bricks that keep it from all crashing down are there, and that this assumption will somehow cause the bricks to exist, making the back-chaining fallacy, that facts derive from perceptions, instead of perceptions from facts.

The human mind is an agency of reason; it takes the sensations the universe gives us and arranges them into perceptions, then concepts, then into logical structures of concepts. It takes the world, illusory or real, that is inputted into our consciousness and processes it to give it order, with the purpose of creating a maximally useful, coherent, etc. output. Thus, the process of the mind requires an input, except in the case of the two a priori facts stated at the beginning. Faith, mysticism, and emotions are not methods to functional existence or the acquisition of knowledge; the first two are a substitution of assumptions and assertions for input and processing, and the third applies processing to a reponse to inputs, reponses which were themselves created originally by some form or level of processing. This gives rise to circular logic not founded on anything even perceived to be real, and thus clearly not a valid path to even minimally objective knowledge.

Given these facts, the only ethics it is rational for a conscious being to adhere to are those of rational or enlightened self-interest; that is, the preservation and continuance of the self, within the bounds of logic, and with the perception of total benefit across time. An individual's consciousness it the first and only thing he is capable of absolutely knowing to exist; thus, his first imperative is to preserve that which he knows is real. Everything else might be an illusion, but he knows he is real, so he must act for himself first. But even an animal acts on self-interest for each moment's gain, or for net gain but still less than total possible gain. This is not rational self-interest; that quality of behavior can be possessed in full only by conscious actors (or perhaps only myself) and consists of structuring actions for maximal gain throughout foreseeable time, using logic as tool and standard.

In groups, universal observance of this standard for action and interaction leads to rational libertarianism, a society of rational conscious actors acting towards maximal mutual gain for reasons of self-interest, within a framework of mutual consent in all limitations, group functions, and other aspects of society or governance. Each individual respects the motivation and ability of his fellows to pursue his or her own rational self-interest, and utilizes this drive and ability to maximize his own utility. When every actor does so, the societal 'equation' naturall balances itself, resulting in a sort of socioeconomic equilibrium state of maximal individual utility distributed based upon abilities and motivations.

Naturally, this only works within a context of noncoercion; this based upon two premises. One, that the process of reason and the action towards rational self-interest occurs only in the context of volitional action based upon volitional consciousness, and coercion strips the quality of volition from the coerced, rendering ethics and reason meaningless; and two, that coercion works both ways, and respecting the rights of others guarantees that same treatment for the self, and such a societal context of mutual agreement to nonaggression results in superior possible utility for individuals, compared to one founded on mutual aggression to the point of stalemate, because this absorbs energy and limits cooperative production and trade.



Sorry for the treatise; it started as a couple of paragraphs and somehow grew of its own accord into a massively larger post.

It's what fire does when it's been working for a while. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
:p

Save for the a priori facts that:
... This can only be accomplished by science, not coincidentially a shorter synonym of empirical epistemology.

I go a little further than that: not only is any such conception of reality not relevant, but it's utterly meaningless. What does it mean for something to be real, but to have nothing to do with our perceptions? It's just an arbitrary designation we put on something based on a fetishized, transcendent notion of reality.

I go a little further than that: not only is any such conception of reality not relevant, but it's utterly meaningless. What does it mean for something to be real, but to have nothing to do with our perceptions? It's just an arbitrary designation we put on something based on a fetishized, transcendent notion of reality.

Simply: That the object of our perceptions exists independently of our perception of it. That if it was not perceived, that it would continue to exist separate from our consciousness.

- While it is foolish to fight fire with fire indiscriminately, fire can combat itself when used wisely and in small quantity - Me

- Preparedness, much like breakfast, is useful only to those who are aware that it will be useless by the time it is needed most. - Me

I'm also a big fan of the cave allegory by Plato.

Simply: That the object of our perceptions exists independently of our perception of it. That if it was not perceived, that it would continue to exist separate from our consciousness.

You're replacing one word with another word of the same meaning. That which is real exists; that is definitionally true.

Let me elaborate on my point a bit.

Let's invent a person named Oscar. Now let's conceive of two "realities": Reality A and Reality B.

In Reality A, Oscar has brown hair.
In Reality B, Oscar has blonde hair.

What does it mean for one to be true and not the other? How can we say that Reality A or Reality B is "real," and the other is "fake"? On whether or not they actually exist? But what does it mean for something to exist, if we divorce it from the idea of relevance?

I can glance at Oscar, and see that his hair is brown and not blonde. If that is the case, Reality A is relevant to my perceptions; Reality B is not. What role does Reality B play? How can it be the "real" reality if it doesn't affect anything, if it doesn't mean anything?

The ultimate answer for me is that reality stems from relevance - the reality I interact with is the "real" reality. All the thought experiments conjuring alternatives are based in incoherent concepts of reality that fail because they have no basis. If reality becomes divorced from relevance, there is nothing at all that distinguishes Reality A from Reality B, or Reality A from Reality Z, or Reality A from any random alternative I invent in my mind.

Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim.It is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational people.

You're replacing one word with another word of the same meaning. That which is real exists; that is definitionally true.

Let me elaborate on my point a bit.

Let's invent a person named Oscar. Now let's conceive of two "realities": Reality A and Reality B.

In Reality A, Oscar has brown hair.
In Reality B, Oscar has blonde hair.

What does it mean for one to be true and not the other? How can we say that Reality A or Reality B is "real," and the other is "fake"? On whether or not they actually exist? But what does it mean for something to exist, if we divorce it from the idea of relevance?

I can glance at Oscar, and see that his hair is brown and not blonde. If that is the case, Reality A is relevant to my perceptions; Reality B is not. What role does Reality B play? How can it be the "real" reality if it doesn't affect anything, if it doesn't mean anything?

The ultimate answer for me is that reality stems from relevance - the reality I interact with is the "real" reality. All the thought experiments conjuring alternatives are based in incoherent concepts of reality that fail because they have no basis. If reality becomes divorced from relevance, there is nothing at all that distinguishes Reality A from Reality B, or Reality A from Reality Z, or Reality A from any random alternative I invent in my mind.

But let's extend the analogy: what if Reality A is a dream? That is, what if it exists only inside your mind, so that if you stopped perceiving some part of it, it would cease to exist? There's a fundamental difference between that which exists independent of your perceptions of it, and that which exists only in your perceptions of it, which is only your perceptions of it. There is a difference there; on an objective level, one is in fact more real than another. It's dependent v. independent existence - are you all there is, and the rest of everything is a figment of your imagination, or is there something besides yourself that actually exists, not dependent upon you?

Do you know you're not dreaming right now? If you are, is it less real than if you were awake?

Ugh ... see what I mean?

*rejoins post #8*

And when you combine religion and television?

Then you get Televagalism.

Then you get Televagalism.
:eek: I had not thought of that. Too true. (televangelism btw)

But let's extend the analogy: what if Reality A is a dream? That is, what if it exists only inside your mind, so that if you stopped perceiving some part of it, it would cease to exist? There's a fundamental difference between that which exists independent of your perceptions of it, and that which exists only in your perceptions of it, which is only your perceptions of it. There is a difference there; on an objective level, one is in fact more real than another.
No objectively both are equally real. If something only exists in a box it is no less real than something that exists somewhere other than a box. Existing only in something clearly doesnt make a thing less real than things that exist elsewhere.
It seems that to conclude existing only in perception makes something less real than existing indepently of perception 'only in perception' must contain some assumption/implication that doesnt exist in 'only in box'.
Ok, I dont do this much but I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate as to what that assumption/implication might be.
I suspect that perhaps it is that a perception is somehow less real than box.
If you could demonstrate this was so, you'd probably have a point, but at this point that hasnt been demonstrated (to my awareness).
To demonstrate that existing only in perception renders something less real in a way that existing only in a box does not, you need to demonstrate a qualitive difference between boxes and perceptions. And that difference needs to be of a kind that necessitates that the contents of one (perception) are always 'less real' than other (boxes).
Personally I'm a bit doubtful about 'less real' (and 'more real' for that matter). Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single thing that is real to some degree or extent other than 100% or 0%.

It's dependent v. independent existence - are you all there is, and the rest of everything is a figment of your imagination, or is there something besides yourself that actually exists, not dependent upon you?

I believe that lots of stuff exists. I dont think that anything 'not me' is only a figment of my imagination - however given the kind of perverse imagination I'd have to have to to generate such a figment, I might be biased towards not believing that such a figment would be generated by my imagination (or any other part of me for that matter).

Do you know you're not dreaming right now?
I believe I am not dreaming now, however I recalling (or am dreaming I recall;) ) having believed the same thing whilst dreaming.

If you are, is it less real than if you were awake?
If I were dreaming would what be less reasl than if I were awake? I'm not sure what you are refering to by the use of 'it' in the above comments.

Those who pray for war, pray for suffering, those who pray for peace, pray for boredom.

A leader should not be afraid to lie to his people (I'm an ardent Machiavelli fan).

Power over 100 is a thing that should have a the prerequisite "responsibilty". Power over one person...oneself is no different.

A man's life is the ultimate valuble thing.

Laborare est Orare. "Work is prayer".

Noble ethics is much better than slave ethics.

You want some real philosophy?

0=df#[λx x≠x]

Of course, obviously this doesn't work.

No objectively both are equally real. If something only exists in a box it is no less real than something that exists somewhere other than a box. Existing only in something clearly doesnt make a thing less real than things that exist elsewhere.

My point is that if the box is you, and the outside is a hypothetical anything or anywhere else, is the picture of a dog printed on the inner surface of the box not less real than the actual dog that is standing there solid and living beside the box?

It seems that to conclude existing only in perception makes something less real than existing indepently of perception 'only in perception' must contain some assumption/implication that doesnt exist in 'only in box'.

Your argument here is merely an artifact of your analogy; the perceptions are not identical versions of the objects that exist outside the box, just placed within; they are part of the box, they are pieces of its cardboard, dependent on its existence to exist themselves. In your analogy, the box can be lifted up or split apart and the object 'inside' would still be there; that isn't true of perceptions. There's no separation between the mind and what is within it; the box and the space inside the box form a flawed analogy.

Personally I'm a bit doubtful about 'less real' (and 'more real' for that matter). Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single thing that is real to some degree or extent other than 100% or 0%.

A dream. A hallucination. The story in a book. The vision of a colorblind person. Our naked-eye perception of matter.

I believe that lots of stuff exists. I dont think that anything 'not me' is only a figment of my imagination - however given the kind of perverse imagination I'd have to have to to generate such a figment, I might be biased towards not believing that such a figment would be generated by my imagination (or any other part of me for that matter).

You believe, but you don't know. You can't say for a surety that any of it does exist.

I believe I am not dreaming now, however I recalling (or am dreaming I recall;) ) having believed the same thing whilst dreaming.

Precisely my point. Morpheus expressed it wonderfully: Have you ever had a dream you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you tell the difference between the dream world and the real world?

If I were dreaming would what be less reasl than if I were awake? I'm not sure what you are refering to by the use of 'it' in the above comments.

Would the dream be less real than the world or events you perceive when awake? Which set of perceptions would be more real? The dream of your friend, or the friend you talk to when you're awake?

My point is that if the box is you, and the outside is a hypothetical anything or anywhere else, is the picture of a dog printed on the inner surface of the box not less real than the actual dog that is standing there solid and living beside the box?
No it is not less real.

Your argument here is merely an artifact of your analogy;
I appreciate that you might infer as much, given that you have no way of knowing that argument proceeded the construction of the analogy.

the perceptions are not identical versions of the objects that exist outside the box, just placed within; they are part of the box, they are pieces of its cardboard, dependent on its existence to exist themselves.
Hang on the perceptions are analogous to the box not to whatever is in the box. It is 'things that only exist only in perceptions' that is analogous to the contents of the box.

If I am correctly interpeting your intended point, the 'things' in perception are not placed in there from outside. So our box's content then will be odour...the material of the box's interior is such that odour is generated within the box.

In your analogy, the box can be lifted up or split apart and the object 'inside' would still be there; that isn't true of perceptions.
No longer, by sheer luck (I hadnt read down this far) the adjustment I made to the analogy in order to take into account the point you raise above, also accounts for the point raised here....

There's no separation between the mind and what is within it; the box and the space inside the box form a flawed analogy.

You posited the perception and the things that exist there as seperate. I followed form. It's really a non-point. If we have perception and things existing only within it then box and odour, if we have mind/perception and things interior to it, then the interior surface of the box and the air/space etc interior to the box...works either way.

A dream. A hallucination. The story in a book. The vision of a colorblind person. Our naked-eye perception of matter.
Dreams are real, hallucinations are real, stories are real, vision is real, etc...all these things are real to the degree of 100%.

In suggesting that a dream (for example) is not real, what do you actually mean? That dreams dont exist? Surely not...

Might I suggest that 'dreams are not real' is either incorrect or incomplete.

I have myself had dreams, other people I know have had them, scientists engage in empiracal studies of them - a volume of data and research findings exist as a result. So it isnt true that dreams are not real.

It is however true that dreams are not real waking experiances. In my experiance when people say 'dreams are not real' they are not suggesting that dreams dont occur, that dreams are non-existent, that dreams are not real, but rather that dreams are not real waking experiances.

This is of course not at all indicative of dreams not being real. Real things have identities, and any two things with mutually exclusive identities are not each other. That dreams and waking experiances do not have the same identity is not inconsistent with the reality of either. Dreams are real, they just dont happen to be the things that they are not and this characteristic (of not being what one is not) is (so far as I can tell) a universal trait of all real things.

A further illustration of the principal I am describing:
A house and a picture of a house. The picture of the house is not a real house, but it is real. The picture is as real as the house, and the house is as real as the picture, but neither is a real instance of the other. The house is not a real picture of a house and the picture of the a house is not a real house.

The similarity that exists between mutually exclusive identities doesnt imply that either is not real.

Going back to things that exist in perception. They are real instances of things existing in perception. This doesnt imply that they are any other thing, and not being some other thing in addition to what they are doesnt imply they are not real. So a perception of a chair is real, it isnt a real chair, but then a real chair isnt a real perception of a chair. It makes no more sense to suggest that because a perception isnt a chair it isnt real than it does to suggest that because a chair isnt a perception the chair isnt real.


You believe, but you don't know. You can't say for a surety that any of it does exist.

LOL, the words I used were chosen to communicate the meanings they convey. I used believe rather than know, not out of carelessness but with intent.

Precisely my point.
Its a point that you did make, and one I would not argue against...

Morpheus expressed it wonderfully: Have you ever had a dream you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you tell the difference between the dream world and the real world?
If you were unable to wake from a dream you'd die before you woke.
To me Morpheus is talking crap.
You are dreaming but dont have any awareness that you are dreaming, this continues. Nothing in this implies that you would tell the difference between dreaming and waking-experiance. In fact the first premise excludes doing so and even implies that it is as likely as not that you wouldnt even try.


Would the dream be less real than the world or events you perceive when awake?
No.
Which set of perceptions would be more real? The dream of your friend, or the friend you talk to when you're awake?
Neither.

We're all dreaming, dreaming awake.

Do you know you're not dreaming right now? If you are, is it less real than if you were awake?

No, it's not any less real, except from the perspective of my "awake" conscious self, which identifies with the reality I interact with when I am awake and labels anything inconsistent with it as unreal.

After all, from the perspective of my perception, "real" reality disappears when I am dreaming.

'Philosophy is best left to people who's brains don't cry when they see long posts.'
-Me

'Philosophy is best left to people who's brains don't cry when they see long posts.'
-Me
ditto... :D :p :) :(

"It's never monkey!"
Quizmania