Tracer is exactly right.

Since every force has a counterforce, perception is the balance of truth, I believe.

"as long as one human can identify something, it has existance. because existance, after all, is just a human idea..."

So nothing would exist without humans? And everything a human believes to exist is more true than what is actually there? You place far too much power on the mind. Or, if instead, everything that a human contrives of has an identity in a sense deeper than a name, well, that goes full circle. It exists because it exists. That's why it's redundant.

The world was here before I was born, and it will remain after I die. The fact that I only perceive a short window of that timeline is completely beside the mark.

If you believe what is real is only what we perceive, fine. That's beautiful. Go write the script for The Matrix 4. But I won't believe it. There is a great deal more at work in our lives than we may ever understand, and we can never in the end know what is real - but you have to take a leap of faith.

" these fall under the "there is a god" category. which means, as much as i hammer the idea that existance is created through idenity, you simply wont accept it. so, in any argument with these kinds of topics, the "loser" is the one who calls off the argument with the "its just your opinion" card. so, i guess i lose.. because it simply is just your opinion =P"

Correction: you once again misread me. That is precisely what I believe in, except my original theory was one of a rule of concrete reality, and your opposition was about the nature of abstract thought, so our ideas do not naturally contrast.

"while there is definately correct and incorrect, there is also real belief. in my book, there are 2 kinds of opinions.. the "who is the better candidate" opinion, and the "there is a god" opinion. concepts of perception, identity, and even existance is something dreamt up in the human mind. these fall under the "there is a god" category."

So basically, what you're saying is that because of the fact that these issues have to do with the core of spiritual life, and are very dear to my soul, that you are powerless to change them because of my stubbornness? I would be full ready to believe in this 'existence through identity' idea, had you actually proved it to me. If you mean that I am to simply go along with what you theorize because I'm so stubborn, I won't believe it.

That sounds like some Daily-Mail-moron-statistics to me- you need to think about what that means exactly and to take it in context...

Me got lost a few pages ago and too much to read now.

This thread went from Bush bashing to executions of minors to reasons for living to morales and who knows where its at now...

Wow.

The nature of existance you say? That answer is easy.

/gets on the lecturn and takes out the Bible (even though I dont believe)

"The nature of our existance comes straight from Adam and Eve way back when."

This was forwarded to me by a friend a few months ago:

In the Garden of Eden,
As everyone knows,
Lives Adam and Eve,
Without any clothes.

In this garden,
Were two little leaves,
One covered Adam's,
One covered Eve's.

As the story goes on,
Nevertheless to say,
The wind came along,
And blew the leaves away.

At the sight,
Adam did stare,
there was Eve's treasure
All covered with hair.

And wonder came,
Under Eve's eyes,
As Adam's thing,
Started to rise.

They found a spot,
That suited them best,
A nice big tree,
Where they began to rest.

Her legs spread wider,
And wider apart,
While thrill after thrill,
Came into her heart.

The head of Adam's thing,
Peeked into the hole,
And filled her with passion,
Beyond her control.

His thing did slide,
And Eve's treasure,
Was all wet inside
The joy was good,
She wouldn't let loose,
Until Adam's thing,
Was all out of juice.

And thus, our reason for existance comes from millions of years of horny people

*does best to ignore WC's post
*

Matt, I can think of few things less coherent than that post. relativity has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is a mathamatical theory which very successfully describes the observeable universe. not a product of a stoned-conversation, and not given to silly ill defined statistics such as you quote. Maybe you are refering to the discontinuity between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? I don't know, but keep in mind the television programs hare hardly the most reliable source for information.

Yes, I think you are gullible. Or possibly just simple.

What do you mean by, "the probability that what we perceive is real"? And how, even if your counterfactual is comprehensible, could anyone possibly arrive at a probability estimate for its instantiation?

You're handling fathomless infinities with all the gleeful fecklessness of a quack. The TV program wasn't on channel 5, perchance? Regardless,whoever scripted it pulled that statistic out of his arse.

Think for yourself. Don't rely on your TV - your brain is better.

Bless me, what do they teach them in these schools?