A) We have evidence that things existed before we did. Are you denying that? If you are, I think it's going to lead to problems.
B) Obviously, we can influence reality. I already defined reality as consisting of matter and energy, which we can influence. But I'm not sure what this has to do with my argument. There is one reality; when two people influence reality, they are influencing the same reality. What's the problem.
Existence is one thing, what is real is another. Most people do not believe that dreams are real, nor hallucinations. Just ask them. But the same people believe there are dreams and hallucinations. Therefore, at least according to most people, things exist that are not real. The term "real" may, or may not be used synonymously with "exist." When it is not, it means mind-dependent, or does not exist independently of mind.
Originally posted by Gregory
A) We have evidence that things existed before we did. Are you denying that? If you are, I think it's going to lead to problems.B) Obviously, we can influence reality. I already defined reality as consisting of matter and energy, which we can influence. But I'm not sure what this has to do with my argument. There is one reality; when two people influence reality, they are influencing the same reality. What's the problem.
A) what if that evidence proves to be wrong tomorrow
and if you say reality existed before we were here, how do you know reality existed before the big bang???
again my question with the colors
I'm not denying anything, I just don't understand how this "proof" could have been proven, How can you prove something that you haven't seen or haven't existed in?
oh I forgot computers, our trusty friends that are never wrong, or maybe you found bones buried somewhere, or was it just the way some particles in some place were different to others or some other bullcrap.
It's like saying all history is fact, bullocks, basically you don't know that that is fact, if so I'd like proof.
thankwoo
Originally posted by Fire
True backfire but ever heard the expression that the same color never looks the same to two ppl
No, I haven't. But common logic suggests that a color looks the same to everyone who isn't color blinded. If that wasn't the case then no one would be able to be diagnosed as color blind.
well just go out with a man and a woman and take 10 random pieces of clothing chances are they'll disagree on 5 or 6 of them.
that is because a red a bit darker isn't the same red as one a bit lighter
and the darker or lighter depends on our eyes, so the two ppl don't see the same color. eventho they both call it red
Originally posted by Fire
A) what if that evidence proves to be wrong tomorrow
Then I would have to reconsider my opinion. But with all the evidence out there, from so many difference fields, it would take some bloody amazing evidence to demonstrate that it is all wrong
and if you say reality existed before we were here, how do you know reality existed before the big bang???
Before the Big Bang? Time started with the Big Bang; it makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" it.
again my question with the colors
To the best of my knowledge, "color" is merely how the brain interprets different wave-lengths of light. If everyone's brains are wired a little differently, I suppose they might perceive color differently. That's fine. I'm saying that there is only one reality, not that people don't perceive it in different ways. Obviously they do; consider that mad-men of the world.
Originally posted by Fire
if everyone perceives that reality in a different way, then how can you say there only is one?
Very easily. Suppose we were together in a room, and I held up a book so that it faces you. You are seeing the front cover, and I am seeing the back. We perceive it differently, but there is still only one book.
wait color is one thing but the form of the object is another
when one peson sees a square the other will see the same shape - a square and not a rectangle...
n as gregory said the realyty is the same and we see it differently in our eyes - much like colours, but the shape is still the same
u get what im saying???
Originally posted by Fire
well just go out with a man and a woman and take 10 random pieces of clothing chances are they'll disagree on 5 or 6 of them.that is because a red a bit darker isn't the same red as one a bit lighter
and the darker or lighter depends on our eyes, so the two ppl don't see the same color. eventho they both call it red
That's because some people see the color "sea blue" and don't bother getting into specifics. They just say it's 'blue'. But another person (most likely a woman) will get very specific about the color. "oh no, it's sea blue, it's not blue".
They may disagree even though they see the same exact shade of blue. Just one person is more detailed in their description of the color.
Originally posted by BackFire
That's because some people see the color "sea blue" and don't bother getting into specifics. They just say it's 'blue'. But another person (most likely a woman) will get very specific about the color. "oh no, it's sea blue, it's not blue".They may disagree even though they see the same exact shade of blue. Just one person is more detailed in their description of the color.
That was something I was gonna point out, Women are very specific on colours... Aparently (I read in a book, lol) that women see things in more detail than men...