Larry Fontaine wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
>  Besides I don't by into this
> > whole line of questionable existence anyway. It's fun in the classroom
> > and around the coffee houses but I need no other proof than what my own
> > senses tell me. 20 years ago I endlessly debated the same material and
> > agree that it's fun but it serves no practical purpose other than to
> > create intellectual discussion. It's not really practical in any other
> > sense where defining our exsistance is concerned.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Tyler
>
> Ok, yes it's getting off the topic. But the point is, we cannot rely on our
perception.
> What if the universe is four-dimensional, and we only percieve three? But this
brings up
> another VERY good point... indeed many philosophers define reality as what we
percieve.
> Because in essence, all we know is what we can percieve, and even if were in the
Matrix
> or something, it's real to us. (And indeed, how would the people pulled from the
Matrix
> know that it's not the other way around... the reality in which they battle the
alien
> ships and try to save humanity is the simulation?)

I think that you could debate yourself into insanity. A person needs to decide, at
some point, what is real and/or important to themselves. And the rest of the world
can take a hike. For me, a defination of good and bad needs a source outside
myself or that defination becomes merely conveince, nothing to live or die for.
I must accept most of what my senses give me. They are all I realy have.
Do I exist? "I think(raytrace,program,read, ect...), therefore I am."
People can debate my existance all they want, I won't go away.
Mr. Art

Post a reply to this message