dimreepr

Stop relying on others, think for yourself. I doubt that, did you present it in the correct context? Otherwise, you damn straight he was wrong.

I wouldn't want to go that deep; just deep enough, for understanding to occur.

They aren't variables, it's the field in which variables happen.

No, of course it's not, FTFY

You've missed the point of his, intention, using the word I've underlined.

Clearly...

This thread would suggest otherwise.

Again, you conflate: Neither, reality is something you can only glimpse; look, it really doesn't matter how hard you, or I, want it to be true; a mathematical model can only ever be an approximation.

There you go again, you conflate the two sentences in order to twist the focus knob again. It's obvious what I meant: It's far far from obvious what you meant, in the sentence I quoted.

It doesn't matter how often, or finely, you change the focus, you can never see reality. I don't understand, is that meant to mean, lost in space or lost in meaning?

Sorry, I've misread your post, so please disregard mine.

Mostly because you've been arguing the opposite up till now, you can't have it both ways whatever you do with the goal.

Anything that follows this, is empty gesturing.

But then that's when philosophy comes to the for; if I lack your language, all I have is empathy.

Even easier when one doesn't speak the language.

Fair enough, I was caught up in the solipsism question.

They were also used in slaughterhouses, to calm the other animals.

I did try to nip this tangent in the bud, many post's ago, because it has no bearing on "cogito ergo sum" which can only be a belief.

But that's my point, given the context of this thread.

Indeed, but I'm unsure how it relates to this topic.

Lets stick to the topic. tar Your credulity is not required, the simple "fact" of the matter is, our senses are fallible and so can't be relied upon as any sort of proof against solipsism. If we take your example of the self drive car, the Tesla that crashed, did so because it's senses were fooled.

We aren't computers.

Ever woken from a dream convinced it was real? I used to wake up and get on with my day, only to wake again, often multiple times.

In Strange's example, did it look like the squares were the same shade? But they were, your belief has no bearing on reality, whether it makes sense or not. Personally I choose to labour under the belief that we do exist and, mostly, my senses are reasonably accurate in defining the world around me, until I'm shown otherwise; but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

It's not a new argument, essentially it's the same as tar's and contains the same flaws of logic; as Strange has shown ones senses can be fooled, you can't know they aren't being fooled now.