Is Our Reality The Truth?

[Guest Lottie]

Debate Suggestion by: Xenojjin & Quicksand.

Is it possible that we are living in some type of matrix or some other alternative universe and that this reality is just a dream . Or is our reality the truth?

Quicksand will be For our reality being the truth.

Xenojjin will be Against our reality being the truth.

The debate will consist of an introduction, 5 bodily posts showing countering of the opponent, good style, persuasive arguments and information relevant to the topic, and a conclusion . Remember to quote your sources, no flaming or offensive langauage.

Also please try try to keep to the time limits of the rules which are 7 days per post otherwise points will start being deducted, see here: rules

If for any reason this is not possible during the course of the debate please let myself or disinterested know.

Any questions, we are just a PM away.

Good luck!

Edited April 19, 2005 by Lottie

[Xenojjin]

Introduction :

Reality . The very thing we experience everday . We wake up to reality , we go through it assuming it is there , but can we be sure ?

How do we know we are not dreaming this reality up ? If we really did live in the matrix would we be able to find out ? No . Humans are only capable of knowing what reality is based on what they percieve and it has been shown many times by people with various mental disorders that it is entirely possible to invent an alternative universe for ones mind to live in ... so how do we know we are not one of them ?

[Quicksand]

01. INTRODUCTION

Xenojjinn asks the question that metaphysics has always asked about this reality and this existence. Is Our Reality the Truth? has largely been a question investigated by philosophy since the days of Plato, highlighted in the days of Descartes, and now inherited by our science of today. The discourse and the arguments have wondered what reality is and how it relates to the individual consciousness locked-up within our heads, henceforth the classic examples of Descartes' mind/body dualism, or the problem of other minds. In short, where does the subjective end, and the objective begin? Is my mind my own? The question still looms in various forms, but mainly as an enterprise of philosophy today.

Yet, the question above is not accurate for this debate. As individuals, we separately find truths within ourselves which are subjective in scope and nature. Subjective truths are validated by faith, even if they are invalid by reality. Since the subjective needs no corroboration outside itself, it can not be held accountable or falsifiable in the way that science discerns what is true or not. Stating the question properly will allow us to answer this question, avoiding subjective internal beliefs. Therefore, we will ask, Is our reality true? In the course of this debate, when I use the words, reality, existence, or the universe, these words are seamlessly interchangeable with another as one word implies the other. It is the grand-context of nature. And in all cases, each are presumed by materiality.

In many ways, the idea that reality is not true presumes that human perception alone can not guarantee us that we can sense the full-scope of reality. This is partially correct, we can not perceive reality beyond what our five major senses report to us. This is why we have the establishment of science and instruments to help us further our perception where our senses can not penetrate. We can not perceive atoms, we can not perceive the subtle mathematics behind flight, we cannot perceive the biological structure of a virus, and yes it is true, we can not perceive many things by our primary five hardwired senses. Yet, by rigorous investigation into nature's laws and by better tools to extend our senses, we can justify with confidence that yes, we do perceive reality and have a developing, objective picture of the universe.

Xenojjinn (my opponent) poses the question that what we think is ourselves could be the hallucination of someone else's mind. The mind (immaterial) is invariably dependent on the brain (material). In the 18th century, philosopher David Hume observed that:

The weakness of the body and that of the mind in infancy are exactly proportioned; their vigour in manhood, their sympathetic disorder in sickness, their common gradual decay in old age. The step further seems unavoidable; their common dissolution in death.

While Hume was discussing whether or not a person has an immortal self, he illustrates that the phenomena of human consciousness is directly related to biological necessity. For instance, the study of Alzheimer's Disease confirms Hume's prediction. As parts of the brain are affected, the individual memory is affected as well. Memories are lost when the brain on the organic level dies or is damaged, and memory is crucial to the concept of the self. We can stimulate parts of the brain with electricity and induce hallucinations. We can take drugs and alter our inner-perceptions of reality. When parts of the brain are damaged, the result changes what the senses report. Even as we age, our senses become dulled and slow. In all cases, the senses must have a brain to interpret their surroundings and then to contextualize these sensations, even if the sensations might be dubious. This is exactly why we do not rely on our inner subjective interpretation alone of what we sense, and enjoin with others to discover what is subjective, and what is objective.

Admittedly, this is never an easy process, especially when it comes to things that can not be seen and sensed by direct observation. Yet, as we try out new ideas about the universe, accepting some while tossing others we add to our overall knowledge base about the universe. The attached chart is a visual model of all possible knowledge within the universe that we can possibly determine. Philosopher, John Dill describes this as the "Transcendent Knowledge Base":

"Because we are born intellectually blank, in order to survive, grow and mature we must learn how to do so. This has led to the necessary construction of a body of knowledge that facilitates survival, growth and maturity and serves as a record of our intellectual progress as a species. Over time this body of knowledge has evolved into systems of academics designed to pass the torch of our progress to the next generation. Each successive generation inherits this product of the labors of the previous generation. Thus it becomes imperative that each generation be trained to some degree or another from this body of knowledge in order to survive, grow, mature and function normally in his own era, occasionally making contributions to the construction of that larger body of knowledge."

And that's gist.

Human knowledge can only function within the realm of what is knowable, and what is not unknowable is considered unintelligible. Simply put, the unknowable is beyond what we can perceive, test, or reason to. Certain facts may be dubious or unobservable by direct sensory observation, yet all knowledge is contingent upon existence. Existence is neither here nor there, it just is. We do not need to rationalize existence. The fallible mind is equally dependent on material existence. This is why we introduce higher levels of skepticism and higher levels of evidence to satiate truth claims. And this is how we establish what we do know, what we can know, and what is impossible to know about the universe.

To that end, my opponent has taken a highly skeptical position of existence, even his existence and we must demand evidence that satiates this claim. The evidence must be of the highest quality, like a yellow brick road that we may count the bricks, plot each of their position, determine the chroma of each, and mark the miles behind us as we do. If he can not empirically demonstrate this, then any argument against reality in the normative, is not only false, but unintelligible. Furthermore, any and all subsequent claims that makes an appeal to the unknowable commits this same fallacy and must be discarded.

Accordingly, my opponent's task is to prove that our collective reality is not true, and must give us irrefutable evidence of a subjective mind (or whatever) is behind the curtain, pulling the levers and flipping the switches. If not our reality, then whose? I shall designate these types of scenarios as Alternative Reality Hypothesis (ARH). Therefore, the very assertion that "reality is not true?" is self-refuting and undermines it's very own presuppositions because it projects itself outside the grand-context of our existence that it is inherently made from within. An argument that asserts reality is false is to make an argument that the material universe is not true. To that end, the material universe must be demonstrated as false to prove that an ARH, (i.e "false-reality") is true. Failing to do so, in all cases that any assertion or idea that goes beyond and outside our reality-context is equally false because it is unintelligible, and must be discarded.

Now that we have defined the problem in its full light, I await Xenojjin's first post.

This concludes my introduction.

___________________________________________________________________________

***************************************************************************

___________________________________________________________________________

I would like thank you very much to Xenojjin for inviting me to this debate. This is my first formal debate ever, and I know from my interaction with Xenojjin before, that he will put up a good, intelligent fight. After some initial controversy, I would also like to thank the mod, and the judges for your time, and I must say to the judges, you sure look nice today.

Cheers!

//Taylor

(NOTE: Edited for grammer/coherency)

Edited April 20, 2005 by Quicksand

[Xenojjin]

Very excellent Introduction that explains alot of what we are about to debate !

Of course as the negative Im going to obviously have to disagree with many points for a variety of reasons . I will also be Shortening some quotes so that too much space doesnt get taken up in order to make it easier for readers to shift through .

BODY POST #1

In the course of this debate, when I use the words, reality, existence, or the universe, these words are seamlessly interchangeable with another as one word implies the other. It is the grand-context of nature. And in all cases, each are presumed by materiality.

First of all I need to make it clear that these three things are not the same and validating one doesnt neccesarily validate the other . How ? Lets look at a couple example that most people reading this will know , starting with the case of Timothy mcveigh . Timothy was by all means a nutjob who percieved the world around him in a twisted light as he actually believed what he was doing was helping some form of truth . His perception of reality was totally gone , he was a complete fruitbasket . However while he percieved himself living in a bogus alternative universe where his rediculous ideas made some kind of sense , he still existed . Mcveigh is a good example of how one can have a false sense of reality and yet still exist .

My second example is another person we all know something about at this time , the case of Terri Schiavo . Her brain was functioning , she existed , but what reality did Terri percieve in front of her ? Probobly a blank slate , or even some warped leprechaun land . Either way she is another example of how our existance and our reality are two slightly related yet completely differant things .

This is why we have the establishment of science and instruments to help us further our perception where our senses can not penetrate...                ... we do perceive reality and have a developing, objective picture of the universe.

One can study the universe all they want , but when it comes down to it science is only an extension of those senses . Can we percieve atoms ? With help from science , we partially can . Of course we are still observing the data science gives us using our senses . This does not count as anything greater then a slight "boost" in ability to understand the reality in front of you . It doesnt mean the reality exists . Can objective truth be achieved through subjective means ? Hardly , as the phrase "objective truth" implies that its 100% undeniable fact and if anything used to accomplish this has room for error in it then the 100% thus becomes closer 92% or even 32% . This is subjective truth . The confidence gained is still somewhat based on fallible faith .

While Hume was discussing whether or not a person has an immortal self, he illustrates that the phenomena of human consciousness is directly related to biological necessity...          ...And this is how we establish what we do know, what we can know, and what is impossible to know about the universe.

The problem with Humes logic is that it is somewhat circular . The knowledge we have gained from observation is that we have a biological neccesity to exist in a concious form , but this knowledge is still based on our subjective means of gathering data from the very reality we are trying to prove which is something we cannot do without assuming that reality is true . What if we really dont start off blank and we only dreamed up that we do ? What if this reality is the result of a matrix like program that feeds our minds information ? What if you were once some higher being that fell into a coma from a leech and this leech wiped our memory clean and then fed us these ideas through this universe that restrict our knowledge ? THe five senses we are restricted to could very well be just another false ploy in this universe to keep us from figuring out the truth . In this case the biology of this reality doesnt apply since if another reality is true other then this one then the laws of biology that supposedly dictate our abilities would be differant .

To that end, my opponent has taken a highly skeptical position of existence, even his existence and we must demand evidence that satiates this claim. The evidence must be of the highest quality, like a yellow...                         

      ....Failing to do so, in all cases that any assertion or idea that goes beyond and outside our reality-context is equally false because it is unintelligible, and must be discarded.

First of all I must point out that since it has not yet been proven that the notion that our reality is true is objective that the burden of proof doesnt lie directly on me , but both of us must come up with a decent amount of evidence . Quicksand must show how we can know that we are not totally bonkers as well . ARH is not self refuting in that it is based on fallibility . If I read a book in this reality that told me the Universe I live in is a mental blindfold from the truth and I concluded from the book that my universe is false then my position would be self rufuting since I would be using my reality to disprove my reality when in order to do so I must assert the opposite . Since I am using my existance , and some philosophy , which isnt exactly the same as reality then the position is not self refuting as I am using my own critical thinking to disprove the universe that lies ahead . That being said ...

So who could be pulling the switches ? Technically anyone can be . It could be your own insanity or it could be a computer with your brain ( Or whatever holds your true conciousness ) hooked up to it . When I question my own reality along with everyone else's I am basically questioning my sanity . Can I trust what goes in front of my eyes and ears ? Is what I feel a made up fantasy ? I cannot answer the questions that would disprove my insanity without first asserting that I am not insane , which poses a big problem since I could similarily just assume that I am insane and prove my insanity using that assertion .

[Quicksand]

QUICKSAND's POST #1

Very excellent Introduction that explains alot of what we are about to debate !

Thanks my friend. I thought it was necessary to frame this debate with a proper argument by giving the background on some of the issues so that others can follow along with us.

Of course as the negative Im going to obviously have to disagree with many points for a variety of reasons.

Which I appreciate. I wouldn't want to take the positive position that you have.

Moving on, I will truncate some of the quotes for the sake of real estate.

First of all I need to make it clear that these three things are not the same and validating one doesnt neccesarily validate the other.

My employment of the word "reality" is in the grand-context is the sum of all existence, and of the universe that we can understand. My usage, therefore, is specialized in his regard.

I will highlight the difference in how you use the word "reality" and how I already accounted already for your usage in my next rejoinder.

... starting with the case of Timothy mcveigh ... he percieved himself living in a bogus alternative universe  ... good example of how one can have a false sense of reality and yet still exist.

When I stated that "As individuals, we separately find truths within ourselves which are subjective in scope and nature. Subjective truths are validated by faith, even if they are invalid by reality." This is exactly the case with McVeigh. However, McVeigh's (subjective) truth were fabricated upon the Transcendent Knowledge Base (TKB) from which we all necessarily share.

Therefore, he did not create new concepts that were totally outside the grand-context of our collective reality (specialized instance). No matter how insane and racist his politics were, they were validated by his faith in them, regardless how detached of the agreement made between individuals in a civil society.

...the case of Terri Schiavo. Her brain was functioning, she existed...

The mass of her brain that provided the higher functions of cognition, memory, speech, and consciousness had died and had been replaced by spinal fluid. We saw the result of this by the media showing her brain scans repeatedly. Even the fact that artificial means had to keep Terri's body living for the last 15 years shows that her autonomic brain was irrevocably dead as well.

Despite all that, let's still assume that she was conscious of her surroundings and had a reality of her own. Her reality would still be necessarily based upon concepts gleamed from the TKB.

Using Terri as an example is totally baseless therefore and shows that Hume was correct in his observation.

One can study the universe all they want , but when it comes down to it science is only an extension of those senses. ... Can objective truth be achieved through subjective means ? Hardly, as the phrase "objective truth" implies that its 100% undeniable fact ... The confidence gained is still somewhat based on fallible faith.

Well, that's correct to a point.

The aim of science and reason is to reduce observations about the universe in laws or concepts that we can understand. None of our knowledge is expressed in absolutes. Science and reason are a means not an end. Thus, the falsifiablity of each discipline and an expanding TKB.

What is not falsifiable and therefore not irreducible is to make a statement that the universe is nothing more than "...people with various mental disorders ... entirely possible to invent an alternative universe for ones mind to live in ... so how do we know we are not one of them ?"

This is only speculation and not irreducible because it posits an absolute that we can not determine whether or not if it is valid.

How can we observe such a thing?

The problem with Humes logic is that it is somewhat circular .

Hume's logic is not circular. His statement is based upon observation and confirmed by neuroscience.

The knowledge we have gained from observation is that we have a biological neccesity to exist in a concious form, but this knowledge is still based on our subjective means of gathering data from the very reality we are trying to prove which is something we cannot do without assuming that reality is true.

Again, this is the same argument above. With science and with reason we aim to reduce our knowledge of the universe into coherent form, while expanding the TKB.

What if we really dont start off blank and we only dreamed up that we do ? What if this reality is the result of a matrix like program that feeds our minds information ? What if you were once some higher being...

Again, just more speculation, not evidence, and definitely not irreducible.

(Note: Although the nature of the tabla rasa is not really central to this discussion, it does lurk behind it. I suggest reading Dr. Stephen Pinker.)

First of all I must point out that since it has not yet been proven that the notion that our reality is true is objective that the burden of proof doesnt lie directly on me, but both of us must come up with a decent amount of evidence.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof. I need no evidence, since you have taken a speculative, irreducible position that reality could be "technically" anyone "pulling the switches."

If we take my opponent at his word, than not just anyone, but someone has to be creating this reality for us. A Someone that he can not even give us evidence of. If my opponent believes that this Someone's fingerprints are all over our reality (specialized use) and our realities (like McVeigh), then he must bring us a fingernail to prove this. Otherwise, again, this is all speculative inference.

Which leads me to another analogy. What my opponent is suggesting is tantamount to a one "universal" mind playing a game of basketball by using his hands like two teams and his ten fingers like players on the schoolyard court. Accordingly, we are all just myths to ourselves and don't exist.

Since my opponent is most probably one of those fingers, we can conclude that he doesn't exist and his ARH can not exist either. If my opponent can not make the argument, then who? All we are left is with speculation that is unknowable by nature and contextually encapsulated by ours. ARH's are not irreducible, and can lead to an infinite regression of speculative origins.

At this point, I have shown that my opponent has completely taken the wind out of his own sails by this argument, and not only is he dead in the water, but philosophically speaking, unintelligible as well.

We can discard him and move onto other things.

(note: edited for grammar and coherency)

Edited April 21, 2005 by Quicksand

[Xenojjin]

Post # 2

When I stated that "As individuals, we ..........regardless how detached of the agreement made between individuals in a civil society.

Just how exactly can anything be validated by faith ? His truth was fabricated on this world , but he took this world and screwed it up . His interpretation of reality was warped , and in the case that you are a brain hooked up to a machine in my den your interpretation of reality would be warped as well . A trancendental argument cant escape possibility . This doesnt prove our reality is false , but it does prove that our reality could be false .

The mass of her brain that provided the higher functions of cognition, memory, speech, an............example is totally baseless therefore and shows that Hume was correct in his observation.

While the case of Terri is a debateable one , so maybe not the best example to use since agreeing on what she had going fo her mentally is still up for grabs as an entirely new debate . My point was based on an assumption that she had an alternative reality that was just a blank world . Like living on a peice of paper .

Hume's logic is not circular. His statement is based upon observation and confirmed by neuroscience.

Your right , Humes observations are not circular . The way you are using them is . Your using neuroscience , something that only exists if this reality is true , to prove we wouldnt be able to live in an alternative reality since we are not biologically capable . This logic only makes sense if we assume our reality is true in the first place .

Well, that's correct to a point.

The aim of science and reason..............f it is valid.

How can we observe such a thing?

You're trying to shift the burden of proof. I need no evidence..........

We can discard him and move onto other things. tongue.gif

Actually Im just allowing my points in this debate to be stretched out to make them understandable , So far I have only attempted to establish that it is possible that we are living in a dream world . By pointing out that most of what I have said is speculation without proof and moving on to asking me to base it on something you have admitted it is at least possible . Im well aware that most of my points are only speculative so far as this is all I wanted to accomplish by now , but thanks for pointing that out anyways .

As for the burden of proof , in no way am I tring to shift it , I am trying to point out that we will be needing logical proof that this reality is true just as much as I will have to prove that it isnt . We know this because we have established by this point that in the very least both of our positions are logically possible .

Shifting the burden of proof would only be going on if I said something like "I have a objective source named monkapoo and he told me that our reality is false . You need to prove me wrong" . No , Im well aware that I will be needing a fair amount of proof that I will be addressing in my next body post which will come out faster then this one .

PS - thanks for doing what I have done and add in "....." rather then quoting the entire thing . The smaller the posts the better and easier to read .

Edited April 27, 2005 by Disinterested

[Quicksand]

QUICKSAND's POST #2

Just how exactly can anything be validated by faith? ...  His truth was fabricated on this world , but he took this world and screwed it up.

And what does this have to do with proving that we live in another reality of someone else's mind?

Nothing.

McVeigh had his own interpretation from what he learned in this existence, from which you learned about him. Again, he did not invent a whole new existence or universe outside and beyond what we live in.

His interpretation of reality was warped , and in the case that you are a brain hooked up to a machine in my den your interpretation of reality would be warped as well

Speculation again. Evidence please.

A trancendental argument cant escape possibility . This doesnt prove our reality is false , but it does prove that our reality could be false .

I can think of a square circle and invisible unicorns too. Just because I can think of all sorts of wild things, does not make them possible.

The way you are using them is . Your using neuroscience , something that only exists if this reality is true , to prove we wouldnt be able to live in an alternative reality since we are not biologically capable . This logic only makes sense if we assume our reality is true in the first place .

You want to assume that reality is not true. Okay let's do so. To prove neuroscience as false, just demonstrate that the material universe as false to prove that an ARH, (i.e "false-reality") is true.

Once you do so, then we can move on to confirm your speculations.

Humes observations are not circular. The way you are using them is.

Incorrect. Please draft a syllogism of my reasoning based upon Hume's a posteri inference.

By pointing out that most of what I have said is speculation without proof and moving on to asking me to base it on something you have admitted it is at least possible.

Not so. Please quote where I have said so. You are confusing inter-subjective value assignment (like McVeigh's) with overall reality that only such concepts can be pulled from the TKB.

In fact, once again, trying to shift the burden of proof.

While the case of Terri is a debateable one ... My point was based on an assumption that she had an alternative reality that was just a blank world . Like living on a peice of paper .

That paper exists within the universe that we all share. Her alternative reality, if biologically possible, would be made of the dreams and sensations gained and gleamed from the natural world and the grand-context of nature.

You're just adding one more unnecessary, unprovable, assumption about existence that the very defintions alone must come from a TKB.

Knowledge can not come from a vacuum. (Please refer to my chart, Intro Post.)

Shifting the burden of proof would only be going on if I said something like "I have a objective source named monkapoo and he told me that our reality is false . You need to prove me wrong". No , Im well aware that I will be needing a fair amount of proof that I will be addressing in my next body post which will come out faster then this one.

These are positive statements that you have made: 01."How do we know we are not dreaming this reality up? 02.If we really did live in the matrix would we be able to find out? 03. So who could be pulling the switches? Technically anyone can be." 04.Is what I feel a made up fantasy?"

But until you begin to answer these problems with an ARH we can begin to look seriously at whatever speculations you have.

01. If my opponent can not make the argument, then who? All we are left is with speculation that is unknowable by nature and contextually encapsulated by ours.

02. The material universe must be demonstrated as false to prove that an ARH, (i.e "false-reality") is true.

03. To that end, my opponent has taken a highly skeptical position of existence, even his existence and we must demand evidence that satiates this claim.

(.i.e. you must prove that you are an actual person first so we can accept your argument.)

These linger and must be answered. Otherwise, you're going around in circles and shifting the burden of proof here.

I await your next post!

//Taylor

(note: edit to fix tags and grammar and spelling.)

Edited April 27, 2005 by Quicksand

[Xenojjin]

Body post # 3

First of all I shall get what the speculation here is out of the way .

Speculation again. Evidence please.

I can think of a square circle and invisible unicorns too. Just because I can think of all sorts of wild things, does not make them possible.

First of all ... I would like to know how you can think of a square circle ... I have never met anyone who could . But thats an irrelevant question , so moving on as I said before so far all I have attempted to do is speculate . But all I have been trying to do so far is show how its at least possible . I have not yet gone into any evidence yet . Calling it speculation when all it is is an attempt to show how something could be is to admit that it is possible .

And what does this have to do with proving that we live in another reality of someone else's mind?

Nothing.

McVeigh had his own interpretation from what he learned in this existence, from which you learned about him. Again, he did not invent a whole new existence or universe outside and beyond what we live in.

The point was to show that a false interpretation of reality is possible . Mcveigh had a mild case , he gathered info from this universe to make a differant one . The point here is to ask how you know that you havent done the same exact thing ? Could you be some nutjob living in some other world and this is a fabrication of your imagination . Again , I am well aware that this is speculation as Im only attempting to show how this is possible .

You want to assume that reality is not true. Okay let's do so. To prove neuroscience as false, just demonstrate that the material universe as false to prove that an ARH, (i.e "false-reality") is true.

Once you do so, then we can move on to confirm your speculations.

You practically validated my point that you used circular reasoning . You using nueroscience in your argument to prove this reality is true , and now your saying the material universe must be demonstrated as false for nueroscience to be false . But that of course doesnt prove anything because if I did prove the universe as false then it would be shown that arguing using biology gained from this reality is pointless . You cant use the two to support each other when both are in question .

Incorrect. Please draft a syllogism of my reasoning based upon Hume's a posteri inference.

Basically it goes like this ( simplified to save space ):

1.We know the biology that has to do with the human mind and its ability to gain knowledge is true because this reality we have researched this in is true .

2.Hume's reasearch and logic shows we have a biological neccesity for consiousness .

3.Therefore this reality is true .

That doesnt make sense .

Not so. Please quote where I have said so. You are confusing inter-subjective value assignment (like McVeigh's) with overall reality that only such concepts can be pulled from the TKB.

In fact, once again, trying to shift the burden of proof.

You never specifically admitted it , but you might as well have . Calling it speculation and asking for evidence rather then immediatly trying to demonstrate how the logic is impossible shows that you are at least open to the possibility that it could be so . That has nothing to do with shifting the burden of proof .

That paper exists within the universe that we all share......

Knowledge can not come from a vacuum. (Please refer to my chart, Intro Post.)

Again ... this argument only works if we assume your position is true to begin with . How do we know knowledge cant come from a vacum ? Because we have never witnessed it or logically figured out how its possible in this universe . If indeed we are living in an alternative reality then this knowledge becomes fruitless . This doesnt prove we are living in an alternative reality or that this one is real . It means nothing .

01.  If my opponent can not make the argument, then who? All we are left is with speculation that is unknowable by nature and contextually encapsulated by ours.

02. The material universe must be demonstrated as false to prove that an ARH, (i.e "false-reality") is true.

03. To that end, my opponent has taken a highly skeptical position of existence, even his existence and we must demand evidence that satiates this claim.

Moving on to the good part . o_O

First of all since my position is that this reality is an illusion , I cannot use biology to prove my position . But I can attack the fallibility of the human mind . IF we are indeed dreaming / trapped in / hallucinating / imagining this universe then only one thing can be certain about the "Real world" ( When I refer to the "real world" I mean whichever reality is true ) that is the same as this universe . We are still fallible . How do we know we are fallible in the "real world" ? Because we think we are here when we are not . How do we know we are fallible in this reality ? Insanity .

Insanity is ussually meant to describe a mental disorder , however this is defined by majority rules . Part of the definition of insanity points to foolishness which brings us to whatever the majority believes . That being said our own sanity is subjective . If most of us were to go back in time 1000 years we could very well be labeled a fruitcase just by the clothes we are wearing .

Tell me , do you even understand this universe that you assume to be real ? Does anybody really understand it ? No . To some degree everyone is insane . All of us percieve the universe in a differant way then it actually is . That being said we have no way of knowing this reality is real , and we have no reason to default our actions to assume that it is . Its best for people to go about their daily lives since technically we have nothing to lose either way , but assuming that your perception of reality is somehow undeniable is an assumption and nothing more .

[Guest]

Since it seems as though Quicksand is not returning, I'll throw this debate to our judges, since I am sure Xenojjin would like to know his score.

Too bad we couldn't finish this one.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Guest

[Walken]

Debater 1: Xenojjin

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 6

Style: 9

Persuasiveness: 8

TOTAL: 30.

Great work Xeno! I really liked the way you mixed scientific knowledge and philosiphy in your main body posts. It would've been a 10 for style if your introduction had been a little better

[Irish]

Oh! ouch! lots of lefts and rights a couple of kidney jabs. To bad you guys couldnt finish I was enjoying this one.

Debater 1: Xenojjin

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 6

Style: 9

Persuasiveness: 6

TOTAL: 28.

Debater 2: Quicksand

Relevancy: 8

Countering: 6

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 7

TOTAL: 29.

[Falco Rex]

I guess we don't really need them, but here's my scores anyway..

Debator 1:Xenojiin

Relevancy:9

Countering:7

Style:8

Persuasiveness:8

Total: 32

Debator 2: Quicksand

Relevancy:8

Countering:8

Style:7

Persuasiveness:7

Total:30

[Guest]

And the scores are in....

Xenojjin finishes with a score of 30;

Quicksand would have completed with a score of approximately 29.5, but since the debate went on for so long with no response from him, his final score is 0.

It's really too bad that we couldn't finish this one.