[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yes. And whatever you ever know, understand or sense The Reality to be, is whatever you know, understand or sense The Reality to be.

No, you're speaking again of My Reality, not The Reality. The Reality exists outside of perception. It was here before humans and would still be here after humans. Many things exist that we have no idea of. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Now sure, you can say "well that's your perception of the unknown in The Reality," but that's really just sidestepping my question, in which case we may be talking about two different things.

The Reality would have to be whatever was here before I had any shred of existence physically, mentally, spiritually, or in any sense (which may not be possible if I've always existed in some sense, which seems to be what your theory depends on).

I don't think it's possible for a human to understand or observe The Reality. Of course, this is just a concept. All we can see is an illusion. Of course, this is just a concept. If anything could see The Reality, it would be God. Of course, this is just a concept. See, now I'm using that circular logic stuff and discussing something that really has no practical purpose. Of course, this is just a concept.

There is nothing you know of your reality which is not "in your head". You see? [...] the outcome is as you perceive it to be.

Yeah, I called it perception.

Your argument is that there's some kind of objective reality, not dependent on a person's perception or consciousness.

I'm showing you how tenuous that proposition is.

I assume there is an objective reality, whereas you assume there is not (or that the idea is tenuous).

If everything is perception, then there is no Objective/Absolute truth. But if we are claiming that everything is a perception, then that is an absolute truth, and now we have a paradox.

I think your idea of concepts could be incorrect, an illusion if you will, albeit a persistent one, that uses itself to make everything it hears fit in with itself.

And all concepts arise in the mind.

What is the mind?

What was there before the mind? If you say, "there is nothing before the mind, since time is an illusion," then I must ask if you're begging the question.

Side-question for you ALG, or anyone: Do you guys ever get tired of discussing scientific theories or philosophy? I've read many things in my short human life and have had thousands of discussions, but eventually for me it all comes down to what I call the "philosopher's dilemma." This dilemma basically states that we really don't know much of anything, so we can either continue thinking about it hard everyday and come up with no real new answers (just more educated guesses), or just live in the so-called illusion and enjoy it. Of course, it's possible to do both, but I like to focus on the latter sometimes more than the former.

I don't mean to discredit forward thinking, but for me personally, I don't like to obsess over it like some others do. Even this conservation is a bit of a drag, sometimes. Not because of the people involved, but because of the subject itself. I've had talks like this many times before, with people who quote even more sources and go into more detail than ALG (who seems to do it more than anyone else on this particular forum). And then I ask myself -- why do we go in these circles? And why do ALG and I keep talking after we have said our goodbyes?

So, ALG, ultimately in a discussion, there will be a point where the participants have to go their separate ways, and we probably have come to it. Again.