In reply to abseil:
> Sorry but I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean [1] there is no reality because you're not aware of it? Or [2] There is reality around you even though you're not aware of it?
> Disclaimer, I have no idea what I'm talking about (welcome to UKC).
> However, number [1] reminds me of the notion seriously put forward by some that if there's no human nearby to hear, a tree falling in the forest makes no sound. Which strikes me as ridiculous and too human-centred. I just don't get it (repeat of my 2nd paragraph)
> krikoman, I am absolutely not saying or hinting that your comment is ridiculous. I'm just struggling here (see my para. 2 again).
I must admit it's making my head hurt.
I suppose what I'm saying is for a person to know any reality they need to perceive things, since we already know and agree (mostly) that we each perceive things differently (synaesthesia - is a good example). If there's a difference which one is correct?
Over all of that, if you could take a brain out of someone's head (not mine I'm using it) and stimulate it in such a way as to mimic "real" life with all it's pointless UKC arguments and time on the bog, then who's to say you couldn't create an alternate reality in their brain.
Since our whole concept of "reality" is electrical signals within the brain, what makes my electrical signals and your electrical signals decide there's a reality.
Suppose you were a computer simulation, and then Ctrl-Alt-Del
I really do need a lay down now
and some tablets