(01-08-2014, 07:58 PM)Fallen Wrote: That doesn't prove reality to me. It proves the nature of reality that someone seems to have, but it doesn't objectively hold unequivocal arguments in a way that I would be convinced that one exists.

(01-08-2014, 11:53 PM)Gin Wrote: you must be illiterate then.

(01-09-2014, 12:18 AM)Fallen Wrote: You must read only what you want to, then. (Which is fine because I don't care what you think or don't think.) I've made the conclusion, though, that you can't think.

(01-09-2014, 01:12 AM)Gin Wrote: I read the entire page, which is something that you've either failed to do because you don't want to or you are illiterate.

You can't come to such a conclusion. Define 'thinking'.

(01-09-2014, 02:21 AM)Fallen Wrote: Thinking would be the unnatural or natural process of the brain in which a conclusion may or may not be reached in regards to some affair.

(01-09-2014, 02:34 AM)Gin Wrote: What is natural and what is unnatural? How is a conclusion not been reached?

And how exactly are you coming to the conclusion that I cannot think? By your definition, my brain 'may or may not have reached a conclusion in regards to some affair' which would mean that by your definition, I am thinking yet you, using your own definition accuse me of not thinking.

(01-09-2014, 02:43 AM)Fallen Wrote: Natural in the sense that the material world could have occurred and unnatural in the sense that the material world could not have been.

Quote: What is the material world? Is that not subjective? And how exactly would it occur?

Quote: Gin is obviously correct.

(01-09-2014, 03:36 AM)Fallen Wrote: Good question. Contradictory to your perception of the world existing as an objective reality. The answer to this question, "I don't know". Which is honest to myself, unlike your replies have been.


Sadly, everyone shares different conceptions and there's no "correct" or "wrong" conception.