Define Cynical Fan Forums

For many many many years, philosophers have tried to argue over what existance really is, and what the reality is versus our perception on it. There have been many differant approaches to the same problem. Now, lets hear your take on it. Do you view the world through the arguments of plato? or perhaps you take more to Descartes. There are external references that could be used all over the place in this thread, including things like movies and TV shows. I'll post my response to this later. I want to be able to have intelegible replies to some of your responses.<br>

Existance is a very easy thing to achieve. Evyrything we think of exists in some form even if it's just thoughts. I may dare to say that EVERYTHING exists before this descusion is over. Even things not consived by anyone past, presant, or future.

i have 1-fold symetry, therefore i exist<br><!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

I say things only exist when they have an opposite, to keep the struggle of existance present. I also believe that there is a difference between how we percieve reality (phenomenon) and how reality actually is (noumenon). I believe Kant said that, if I remember the O&M strip that referenced it. It was something like that, if I got it wrong, I still say it makes sense to me. Yes, I'm taking philosophy from O&M. I've never been philosophy-oriented, so I get mine from elsewhere.

I say we exist because what proof do you have to say we don't exist?<br>Senses have to go to an existant object in order for it to be recieved.<br>Or are you saying we're all in a program Matrix kinda thing?<br>If so then we're a bunch of variables, or if we're just in someones imagination then we're a bunch of however his nucleus calculates things.<br><br>I think, therefore I am.<br>WTF does that mean!?

Aargh.. I am so digging up a post I made about the notion of reality I made on <a href='http://www3.the-pork.com/forums/index.c ... picid=2491' target='_blank'>another site's thread</a>, assuming it still exists there.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Me+ The Pork, Oct 07, 2003 12:34 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Me @ The Pork, Oct 07, 2003 12:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Hmm.. I had some long thoughts about the nature of reality before, but in a way, reality could very well be anything. Science tries to understand reality by determining the nature of all things they can experience; this sense of reality is constantly validated or disproven by experimentation. From the tiniest subatomic particle to the largest formation of galactic superclusters, rules have been found to exist universally, even if the rules themselves are not completely known. Anything beyond this "reality" can neither be found to exist nor proven to not exist, and so it is left for scientists, philosophers, and all sentient beings to conjecture.<br><br>It is this aspect of reality that I assume you are looking to understand, and yet it is this very nature of reality that by definition cannot be fully understood. Religion seeks to explain this reality with their own interpretations that you may accept or deny, but not prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt.<br><br>We trust what we sense as reality because we sense nothing to contradict it. Once contradictions appear, reality is no longer accepted, and it is in turn replaced with another sense of reality that is no longer self-contradictory.<br><br>For example, if you are seated and reading a book, your eyes tell you you are not moving, while your inner ear says you are accelerating and decelerating. It becomes disorienting becauses your senses are contradictory and your sense of reality is shattered. However, once you set the book down and look around you, you can see that you're sitting in a moving car with a book on your lap and (hopefully) someone else at the wheel. Contradictions are eliminated, and reality is found once again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->

I just try to follow the rules to not make people mad.<br>I don't think we're supposed to know.<br>I think it might make them mad.<br><br>OTOH, they might be running an experiment to see how long it takes for us to understand...<br>but how are we to know if nobody tells us?<br>i guess that's the weakness of being a human...<br><br>hey, what's it called when you can have good-quality discussions and arguements with yourself?

gurt ozy, the o&m strip you ment is<a href='http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2002/om20020403.html' target='_blank'>the meaning of like</a><br><br>and tavis, you have a talent for poetic explinations of interesting points.....

Well, I can't find much argumentive discussion here, we exist!<br><br>Well, we might not but who gives?

Thanks, Penguinita.. And all this time I felt silly about quoting myself.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Me+ "reality.txt", saved on Oct 16, 2001--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Me @ "reality.txt", saved on Oct 16, 2001)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> In many ways reality is the one you accept. Once you have what is known, what is undeterminable can be understood as anything you can fantasize. No one can completely control your personal sense of reality, only offer more information to influence your approach to the undeterminable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->

How many of these text files do you have?

I read O&M therefor I am.

<!--QuoteBegin-NHJ BV+Jan 8 2004, 12:56 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (NHJ BV @ Jan 8 2004, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I read O&M therefor I am. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Excellent philosophy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Well, I saved three "rants" on the computer, but the boards across the net have gathered a couple others, and I'm sure I have some hidden in old ICQ archives, a dictionary, and such.

Here's a question: Why bother about useless stuff like this?