I cited one quote that points out that we exist. Who would argue that we do not?

A pencil can't be an illusion of a pencil because that implies the pencil exists. It exists in this world the same way a pencil exists to you in one of your dreams. It has all the appearance of being real because, in your dream, it is real. Last night, I dreamed I was driving my car. When I awoke, I realized it wasn't may car. In fact, it was nothing like my car. But in my dream it was my car. So was this car real? In my dream, it was real. Is this reality real? As Morgan Freeman says, "It certainly feels real to me."

Why wouldn't I believe in that evidence? Reality is a dream but when you're in that dream, it's real.

I think that is likely true. What is your point?

The only assumptions that have been made are by you second guessing seemingly every single thing I said, which you CLEARLY do not understand. I told you to take some time off from this thread a familiarize yourself with other philosophies other than the ones you only want to be true. Your quick response demonstrates you have no interest or intention in doing so. Consequently, you are swinging at me wildly and breaking your own nose.

False assumption on your part.

Bingo. My philosophy is NOT a philosophy of nature. You have erroneously criticized on those grounds and then in the end accuse me of not presenting a philosophy of nature. Then why are you posting ALL this stuff. You could have much more easily said, "This is not a natural philosophy." And I would have replied, "You are absolutely correct, it's not."

And STILL, you're going to keep arguing...

JEEZUSS! You about through???

When I wrote that you can't know if the pencil is real, what I meant is that it will be as real as you are with an existence independent of yours. If you die, the pencil will still be there. You can't ever know that for sure and so it was a quick example by me to illustrate how material things can't be proven. It seems you've somehow managed to miss that point entirely.

But as a quick comment on your dream pencil, I think of a pencil or a car in a dream as a rough copy of the real thing. What gives rise to the dream pencil is not the materials which make up the real pencil, but chemical and otherwise interactions in my brain which attempt to recreate the sensations of a pencil as a part of a narrative. The dream pencil's shape does not have the complexity of the real thing and its shape is variable. Also, I don't have the full range of senses in my dreams as I do in real life and so my ability to experience the pencil will be somewhat muffled. In my dreams, I am not subject to the laws of physics like I am when I am awake (insert off-topic comment about whether or not we are truly awake if you want) and sometimes, I am aware that I am dreaming, if only vaguely. Once aware, I gain more control over the pencil or indeed the whole dream world and I usually try to fly.

So different rules apply to the different pencils. The "real" pencil abide by the same rules I do and that makes it more real to me. The dream pencil abides by my rules, even consciously so when I am aware that I am dreaming. In a sense, when I dream, I suspect I am always at least vaguely aware that I am dreaming. My dreams often feel unreal.

Yes, if your whole life and experience of reality has been a dream, it follows that you wouldn't know what it's like to not dream.

When you fail to understand human evolution, I make an attempt to explain it to you. I don't mind it if you want to provide suggestions for reading material, but I do think that if you feel I misunderstand things that you understand, you should try to explain, like I have.

Well, if you involve quantum physics in order to explain it and validate it, clearly the validity of your hypothesis depends on the validity of your quantum explanation which is natural philosophy.

Had you detached your philosophy from natural sciences, I would agree with you.

Those are replies to things you brought up in your last post. As I see it, valid criticisms to your logical argument for reincarnation which you fail to address.

And of course I am going to argue. It's why I come to MB in the first place. Up until now, I have been treating this as a serious discussion and trying not to derail it by resorting to insults, etc. which often result from a defensive attitude. From your defensive behaviour, I think you feel that you are under attack. If your personal agenda is simply to validate your own ideas and gain satisfaction from telling others about it, that is a completely natural reaction. Your long posts outlining your personal philosophy do come across as rather preachy. But had you been in search of the truth, you should see that my arguments are an outside opinion that you yourself could learn from.

So which is it? Did you make this thread in order to seriously discuss your ideas and the validity of them or are you here simply to preach?

I don't believe in reincarnation or karma. I think that doing good, doing the right thing, is it's own reward, and that if you do good based solely on the belief that it's positive karma in the bank or guarantees a place in heaven, then that's selfishness. Similarly, if you go around being an arsehole, I think it's your own consciousness that makes you suffer, not some all-seeing force in the universe judging our every action and handing out rewards and punishments. Every man is his own hangman.

It doesn't matter whether you do good or not. You still live a succession of lives as well as living your current one over and over without the slightest bit of change. The other lives you have and will live, you are also living over and over again without change or variation. Doing good is an evolutionary advantage that makes your life better but it will have no bearing on any other life you live.

You sound unnervingly certain that we will live out multiple lives. Might I ask what you base this belief on? Do you remember a past life?

Go back and read the first few posts. Everything is explained there.

Okay, I read your opening post and a couple of your proceeding posts (geez, you have a lot to say on the matter) buy I saw nothing that hinted at why reincarnation is likely. I mean you gave some reasons, but they wern't what I would call imperial and were based on your own personal feelings rather than any evidence.

But I'm not belittling your opinion or the method that led to it. I tend to trust my feelings above my senses or 'logical' mind too. I just don't believe that my or anybody elses thoughts or feelings and necessarily a reflection of the ultimate reality. I think we all live in our own little reality tunnels and the world we perceive and experience is largely the world we create in our tiny little heads. Indeed I sometimes think it's a wonder we can communicate with each other at all.

Imperial? You mean empirical? No, this is NOT an empirical argument. It is a conservative argument. The reason I reject empiricism is because, strictly speaking, nothing is objective. Every event you witness has to pass through your sense-processing mental equipment. By the time you are able to reflect on it, it is a subjective experience. It has been shown that memories are largely fiction the older and more detailed they are. So empiricism a good measuring stick for ontological and epistemological arguments? I say no.

I'm inclined to agree. My argument is constructed not to rely on crystal clear recollections because I don't believe these exist for the most part--only that we have memories, maybe not very clear or accurate, but we have them.

Sorry, yeah, empirical. I agree with you that nothing is objective as all information has to pass through our nervous system before we can reach a conclusion.

So you believe we have lived past lives because we have memories? Reminds me of something Socrates said, he thought we never really learn anything, we merely remember, that the soul is eternal and goes on to inhabit new bodies.