response 1 of 120:

May 30 12:45 UTC 1994

Reality is stuff that happens.  Unreality is stuff that doesn't happen.

response 3 of 120:

May 30 16:36 UTC 1994

(as in "how do you know something has happened?")

[I think I'm going to love this.]

response 5 of 120:

May 30 22:54 UTC 1994

re 3
yeah who decides what has happened and what hasn't. It is different for 
different people, but yet there is somthing that we all must share.

Heres another question for ya. 
Who makes things happen?

response 7 of 120:

May 31 01:35 UTC 1994

We don't know for SURE.  All we know is what we sense.

response 9 of 120:

May 31 04:08 UTC 1994

I see.

response 11 of 120:

May 31 12:33 UTC 1994

If the sensory process is not representative or reflective of reality then it
is not a means by which we can know reality. This idea has already been dealt
with by R. Descartes.

response 13 of 120:

May 31 18:28 UTC 1994

I don't think that you can.
You have to belive in things for them to be real. You have to belive that
because if feels solid, that means it is.

response 15 of 120:

May 31 23:48 UTC 1994

re:#12
Nope, our senses do NOT provide us with an accurate description of reality
AT ALL. Why? Think of the stick in the glass of water experiment, for all
purposes the stick looks bent, it just isn't. A piece of glass at 450 
degrees C looks just like a piece of glass at 20 degrees C, take it in your
hand and you'll notice the difference, however, at the same time your senses
will not be able to tell the diff. in temp. to a hot stove burner. Your 
senses are awefully limited, vision is only representative of a narrow
part of the EM spectrum, you can't even detect high energy radiation, nor
can you smell all substances at finite concentrations.  VERY deficient!
re:#13
Nada again. The concept here is not belief (people believe a lot of crap and
it has absolutly no reflection upon the actual existance of what they 
believe, i.e., belief something therefore it exists is PURE BULLSHIT). 
Consult a psych. book about cognition and the cognitive process, add
does not mean that we have to make certain steps in the beginning to lay down
a framework for communicating ideas, like the concept of what is solid or
not, and as soon as that happens you run into problems, e.g. is glas a 
solid??

response 17 of 120:

Jun 1 02:17 UTC 1994

re #15-  i think you miss the point of the arguements, because you think
they negate yours.  That's not the case.  They basically point out much
of the truth in your arguments.  I guess it's just not clear
to you.
We do have other 'intruments' that go beyond our admittedly limited
ability to 'know' reality.  My point is that we can only know reality
with whatever collective or individual tools we possess.  anything beyond
that is pure speculation about reality.

response 19 of 120:

Jun 1 18:24 UTC 1994

I think you are missing the point.
It's merely definition.
I define reality as the most accurate picture I can get of what 'IS' based
upon all of my resources.  Beyond this, a concept of reality is not
very meaninful.

response 21 of 120:

Jun 2 02:12 UTC 1994

Well Then, show them to me.  Elighten me, if you have some enlightenment to 
give me.  I may be stupid, but I *can* learn, and even *change* my
possistion if I hear a good enough argument to do so.  So far you haven't
said anythingto me which makes me think I need to change it.
Trivial?  how so?  You haven't given me any meaningful definition of
reality yourself.

response 23 of 120:

Jun 2 15:47 UTC 1994

re:#21
Trivial, because you ASSUME that your senses ARE your 'interface' to reality,
and I say assume, because you have not made a valid argument why your senses
could have that property.
1] Since you do not provide a proof for what you say your concept of reality
   becomes an assumption, and therefore is just as dubious as the 'I believe
   this, therefore this exists..' argument.
2] If I grant your assumption as true and correct then your statement about
   how you percieve reality (i.e., how you define reality) has a tremendous
   flaw: reality encompasses more than your senses/resources can tell you,
   but for you that is not part of reality. Unless you allow for uncertainty
   (which is diff. then speculation) you cannot claim to know reality par se.

See, the rub is that when Descartes says, "things we know for sure" he jumps
into the abyss of metaphysics, out of which there is no escape (unless you
think his attempt was any good). He denies physical existence on the basis that
it is uncertain, but is it, i.e., can we work on the basis of 'essence'? Either
way you turn you will run into problems. When D. finally makes his claim of
"cogito, ergo sum" we're still not any further ahead then we were before, since
neither 'cogito' nor 'sum' are well defined. What happens when you start a 
causal chain, regarding 'sum', at the end of chapter 3 ?? How can he claim
the existence of certain items ("an evil force") while he cannot claim HOW he
"knows them for sure"? 
There is no metaphysical explanation for physical existance, therefore we
either exist as metaphysical concepts ('essences') or as physical beings.
If you chose metaphy. you cannot make any claims about physical existence, if
you chose physical existence you cannot know reality for the sumtotal of it
is larger than what we can grasp and know. You can only chose physical e
existence if you admit to the following: reality, as a concept, I cannot know
completely, there are uncertain aspects of it. WHATEVER is 'known for sure' 
(in the physical system, not Descartes's system) forms my WORLDPERSPECTIVE.
Please note:
a] I say 'chose'; there has to be a nontrivial reason(s) for going one way or
   the other, which I leave for you to think about, or read about, since the
   'background' knowledge is considerable. Second, I cannot claim that I'm 
   able to explain many of those concepts (what does Plato mean by 'potentia',
   what is 'res extensa' vs. 'res cogitans' (ok, those are rather easy), but
   how can I sumtotal Kant and explain the depth of his central question
   (are synthetic judgements possible a priori), sufficiently here and now?
   Third, once through all the philosophical concepts, how do I go on and  
   explain the questions brought up by QP, and it's implications??
b] Once done with a], which should take you quite some time, you will see why
   simplistic statements on the basis of sensory perception (etc.) are indeed
   simplistic (besides the fact that we can come to terms on ideas like
   uncertainty and worldperspective), and that they're in need of better
   definition and modification.
c] the flaws in systems in which metaphysical and physical ideas mix freely
   (i.e., religion) will become apparent, which may/may-not be a shocker.

re:#22
The issue is if your senses are sufficient to explain what passes for reality,
the exact quantities and qualities of the examples are trivial to that respect
and are only used to elucidate the point in question to somebody who forms his
worldperspective in their qualitative/quantitative terms.