Guybrush

When I wrote that you can't know if the pencil is real, what I meant is that it will be as real as you are with an existence independent of yours. If you die, the pencil will still be there. You can't ever know that for sure and so it was a quick example by me to illustrate how material things can't be proven. It seems you've somehow managed to miss that point entirely.

But as a quick comment on your dream pencil, I think of a pencil or a car in a dream as a rough copy of the real thing. What gives rise to the dream pencil is not the materials which make up the real pencil, but chemical and otherwise interactions in my brain which attempt to recreate the sensations of a pencil as a part of a narrative. The dream pencil's shape does not have the complexity of the real thing and its shape is variable. Also, I don't have the full range of senses in my dreams as I do in real life and so my ability to experience the pencil will be somewhat muffled. In my dreams, I am not subject to the laws of physics like I am when I am awake (insert off-topic comment about whether or not we are truly awake if you want) and sometimes, I am aware that I am dreaming, if only vaguely. Once aware, I gain more control over the pencil or indeed the whole dream world and I usually try to fly.

So different rules apply to the different pencils. The "real" pencil abide by the same rules I do and that makes it more real to me. The dream pencil abides by my rules, even consciously so when I am aware that I am dreaming. In a sense, when I dream, I suspect I am always at least vaguely aware that I am dreaming. My dreams often feel unreal.

Yes, if your whole life and experience of reality has been a dream, it follows that you wouldn't know what it's like to not dream.

When you fail to understand human evolution, I make an attempt to explain it to you. I don't mind it if you want to provide suggestions for reading material, but I do think that if you feel I misunderstand things that you understand, you should try to explain, like I have.

Well, if you involve quantum physics in order to explain it and validate it, clearly the validity of your hypothesis depends on the validity of your quantum explanation which is natural philosophy.

Had you detached your philosophy from natural sciences, I would agree with you.

Those are replies to things you brought up in your last post. As I see it, valid criticisms to your logical argument for reincarnation which you fail to address.

And of course I am going to argue. It's why I come to MB in the first place. Up until now, I have been treating this as a serious discussion and trying not to derail it by resorting to insults, etc. which often result from a defensive attitude. From your defensive behaviour, I think you feel that you are under attack. If your personal agenda is simply to validate your own ideas and gain satisfaction from telling others about it, that is a completely natural reaction. Your long posts outlining your personal philosophy do come across as rather preachy. But had you been in search of the truth, you should see that my arguments are an outside opinion that you yourself could learn from.

So which is it? Did you make this thread in order to seriously discuss your ideas and the validity of them or are you here simply to preach?

__________________
Something Completely Different