Prove that you're not figments of my imagination

[schmuck]

---

I'm not a pigment because I'm not a color

[schmuck]

@ schmuck

do you know what computer is?

of course, what's your main point?

[chad_tukes]

mga "joker" pud mo da.

[handsoff241]

asking me to do so is proof enough...

the moment you supplied the question disproves the fact (that you are being persuaded) that we are figments of your imagination because you cannot imagine what/how we will respond, a clear evidence that we are independent from your imagination.

parehas na og damgo, dili ka kibaw unsa mahitabo...

dreaming is different from imagining
dreami is: Dream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
while..
imagination is: Imagination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
now base on the definitions, they are totally different.

how do i prove that i am not a figment of you imagination?
the moment you ask me, (out of curiosity) is proof enough that i am not your imagination. because you simply cannot ask your imagination and not know the answer. that fact that you required information not known to you from a certain source, simply indicates that, that source is not a part of you and is dependent of you.

if you ask Cinderella, are you a figment of my imagination? if she is indeed a product of your imagination, you would simply know, because you are the one animating her, you are the source of her being, of her existence.

if you ask me(or any other istoryan) provided that your inquiry is out of curiosity, and you required an information not known to you. if i am a product of your imagination, then you would know that i am writing this, that i am doing this, but it is not the situation. i am supplying my answers dependent of your thought i am existing out of your perception.

[schmuck]

asking me to do so is proof enough...




dreaming is different from imagining
dreami is: Dream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
while..
imagination is: Imagination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
now base on the definitions, they are totally different.

how do i prove that i am not a figment of you imagination?
the moment you ask me, (out of curiosity) is proof enough that i am not your imagination. because you simply cannot ask your imagination and not know the answer. that fact that you required information not known to you from a certain source, simply indicates that, that source is not a part of you and is dependent of you.

if you ask Cinderella, are you a figment of my imagination? if she is indeed a product of your imagination, you would simply know, because you are the one animating her, you are the source of her being, of her existence.

if you ask me(or any other istoryan) provided that your inquiry is out of curiosity, and you required an information not known to you. if i am a product of your imagination, then you would know that i am writing this, that i am doing this, but it is not the situation. i am supplying my answers dependent of your thought i am existing out of your perception.

suppose, I'm imagining that I don't know the answer to the question I imagined to ask?

then whatever you reply, I can simply conclude that I imagined your answer.

kita na kag bata nga magstorya sa iyang kaugalingon or murag naai kaistorya by him/herself?
murag in-ana.

[handsoff241]

suppose, I'm imagining that I don't know the answer to the question I imagined to ask?

then whatever you reply, I can simply conclude that I imagined your answer.

you are imagining that you don't know yet your subconscious knows. so Cinderella is still your imagination.

my reply was new to you, it was not in your subconscious, you need me(an outside source, not part of your imagination) to supply that to you before you imagined what it(my reply).



you are just stubborn.

[schmuck]

you are imagining that you don't know yet your subconscious knows. so Cinderella is still your imagination.

my reply was new to you, it was not in your subconscious, you need me(an outside source, not part of your imagination) to supply that to you before you imagined what it(my reply).



you are just stubborn.

mao ni akong na-observe sa akong pag-umangkon 4yr~ish, mag sturya2x cya while nagdula. murag naa lain kasturya. mangutana2x cya, nya cya ra pd mutubag/pretend nga naai nitubag. murag ana nga scenario.
ikaw akong imaginary kadula, ni-ask ko og question sa imo, then ni imagine ra pd ko unsa imo itubag.

[The_Child]

of course, what's your main point?

we assume that, everything is an imagination and
imagination is not objectively real.

now, if everything is a figment of your imagination then everything is merely an illusion, i.e, no objective reality in the here and the now. The computer is just an imagination, and there is no REAL computer infront of you.
if everything is an illusion, then even your awareness: that everything being an imagination, is itself an illusion.

for how would you know that your awareness is not itself an illusion, it must be an illusion too.

SO how do you prove that i am not a figment of your imagination? in the first place, the statement itself is impossible, it is a contradiction. If everything is an illusion then even your perception that everything is an illusion must be itself an illusion and if it is an illusion then itself is not REAL in the first place.

cheers!

[handsoff241]

^hey of all the 3 forums this post makes the 3rd sense

mao gani, because you are providing the answers, you therefore should know them.

let me ask you.. are you providing my answers to you? or this post is totally out of your awareness?

mao ni akong na-observe sa akong pag-umangkon 4yr~ish, mag sturya2x cya while nagdula. murag naa lain kasturya. mangutana2x cya, nya cya ra pd mutubag/pretend nga naai nitubag. murag ana nga scenario.
ikaw akong imaginary kadula, ni-ask ko og question sa imo, then ni imagine ra pd ko unsa imo itubag.

[josephdc]

All these philosophical questions are very interesting... But we can't really live consistently with this idea in the real world, because it's too radical. Radical skepticism about the nature of reality, etc., can cripple us...

@ The_Child: Mao!