I have presented it. YOU KEEP IGNORING IT.
Now, here it is again for you to ignore:
Corroboration.
You haven’t presented ANY corroboration at all.
Corroboration would be information you receive from sources that ARE NOT your senses. You do not have any way of gathering this information.
You haven’t presented ANY evidence. Evidence to support content cannot be gathered from within the content, unless it’s self verifying. Since perception isn’t, there is no evidence.
All you have presented is more examples of what your are trying to verify.
Mass amounts of unverified data from many sources is no more valuable than small data from few unverified sources. When the context is attempting to verify the source, the content holds NO VALUE AT ALL! What you are trying to say is that you have a lot of various content, but you are ignoring that the SOURCE is in question.
You have no corroboration, you have no evidence. All you have is poorly constructed argument from unverified sources.
Person A sees a stack of CDs.
Person B sees a stack of CDs.
Person C sees a stack of CDs.
…
Person X sees a stack of CDs.
Person Z sees a stack of CDs.
Therefore, the stack of CDs exists and person A’s senses are correct…UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW OTHERWISE.
You repeatedly show that you cannot back up your position that my senses are flawed. But I’m wrong.
That’s what I find interesting.
I can’t figure it out. Please explain it to me. You just keep insisting that our senses aren’t reliable yet I keep showing, time after time after time after time after time…AFTER TIME… that they are…yet you just say “Nuh uh!”
But your senses are telling you that other people are telling you that. That’s the whole point.
Daniel you are a smart guy, but sometimes you can be pretty fucking stupid 
You can’t trust Person A, B ,C, D etc. because you perceive those people with your senses, too.
NPC A is scripted to sense the stack of CDs.
The script gets Copy and pasted to NPC B-Z.
To be honest, I think the interdimensional people controlling our world is a conspiracy, but I like making theories and Jokes about it. Does that make me an agnostic?
Hold on a minute, all three of you.
Are you asserting that these other people aren’t seeing what I see; that persons B through Z are some sort of NPC or that they’re not real? Really? And I’m the “pretty fucking stupid” one? :rolleyes:
Yes, I only know that they see what I see because they communicate so through my senses, BUT, that doesn’t mean that they don’t see it.
Think of it this way. GET OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF just for one moment and think:
I am a person. They are a collection of persons. I see X. They see X. Therefore, X.
Now, unless you have evidence that “THEY” don’t exist when all evidence suggests that they do…
But, maybe I’m pretty fucking stupid to think that other people are real. :tired:
You can’t verify these people exist. But you are prepared to make assumptions about them and your perception of them.
You don’t know anything about what they see. Just what you perceive they say that they see. You can’t even be sure they are there at all!
How do you know there is a collection of persons, or even anyone/anything outside yourself unless you are ‘outside of yourself’ to verify this? You are suggesting that they do, when they may or may not.
You haven’t even provided evidence they exist, why should we prove beings that may just be your imagination exist? You still haven’t provided any evidence aside from your perception they exist.
It’s not stupid. It’s an assumption, and a valuable one. But it IS an assumption.
Person A2 does not see a stack of CDs. Person A2’s other perceptions are in direct contrast to those of persons A-Z. There are other persons who have similar “misperceptions” to person A2. These persons constitute a minority of the population. Person A2 and others are diagnosed to be “insane”, meaning that their sensory input is not reliable.
Persons A-Z conclude through sensory data that person A2’s sensory data is not reliable. Therefore the assumption is flawed. Those persons’ sensory input is just as reliable as that of persons A-Z.
Now, substitute persons A2, etc. for your A-Z. Suddenly, the “sane” persons’ senses are not reliable.
So, what is insanity, anyhow?
And how valid is anyone’s sensory input?
You may not even be a person. That’s the whole fucking point.
Following the example of the matrix, people could just be computer programs.
If you’ve never been outside of the matrix, you’ll think those programs are real people, when they’re not.
If you’ve never been outside of the matrix, you don’t (and can’t) know that the matrix even exists; you take what you see as real, when it’s not.
This whole thing reminds me of the ruler of the universe. I’m pretty sure my logic here is right, but in practice it’s a real pain in the arse.
Wait, what?
…what “matrix”?
This is how I see the whole argument:
Seriously? This is what you’re arguing?
wat
Nope, still not getting it…
You could say, I think I see a dog. Is it really there? If you add ‘anyone else’ you just compound the issue with ‘does anyone else exist’. You just can’t skip steps Daniel.
You haven’t even determined if the dog exists and you jump to assuming the dog or what you see exists, AND that other people exist to observe the dog as well. I’m thinking of drawing up a visual or something to help with this concept…
I can see it. I can touch it. I can smell it. I can taste it (ewww!). I can hear it.
Unless you have evidence that contradicts this, then yes, it’s there. It’s really there.
Not skipping steps. I’ve already confirmed it’s there.
Not at all. I’ve determined that the dog exists. Then got corroboration from others.
You think you can hear it, but how do you know what you hear is accurate?
You think you can touch it, but how do you know you can trust their either?
Smell is a concept your brain associates with certain stimulus. It doesn’t know the source of the stimulus.
Your tongue delivers the information of taste. Yet you can’t even verify you have a tongue without using your senses to confirm it.
This sort of definitive self awareness isn’t something I claim. I’m not sure how you can make the claim you know based on your senses, but I just assume my senses are at least conveying information from some sort of reality.
Convincing yourself, and confirming aren’t the same thing.
Just because you believe you perceive a dog and people to confer with, doesn’t mean either exist per se. It just means you believe they do based on your observation. Since your observations can’t be confirmed or refuted, neither can your conclusion.
I’m sorry, but what do you mean that I “can’t verify” these things?
If you mention some sort of “outside” thing such as a matrix, a brain-in-a-jar, or any other thing you could possibly come up with., provide evidence of this “outside” thing.
You keep insisting that I “can’t verify”…but you can’t tell me what you would accept as verification. I’m beating my brains in here. It’s like you’re stating that what is isn’t and what isn’t is.
What more can I do?
EDIT: Okay, look. Here’s the deal. You provide me with what you want me to do and I’ll do it. If all you have is the equivalent of “nuh uh!”, then I’m done.
Let’s talk a little about the old conspiracy of mind control that have been since the cold war.
You might not see the dog, but your manipulated brain is told that it is there.
You might not hear it bark, but you still hear the barking inside your head because it is “programmed” in there.
You might not feel the dog, it is just an illution for you, but your nerves are activated and your muscles freezes when you “touch” it.
And so on with smell and the other senses…
To be honest, my computer or even the keyboard I am typing at never existed and my thoughts are not put on this thread, but still you can read it even if it was never there. It is just here because some Russians or the FBI filled you up with LSD.
Drasar: Do you have any evidence of this?
Did the conspiracy theorists before me have it? (just google it or something, I’m too lazy to even care)
So, if you don’t have any evidence…