Can you prove Reality, exists (without refering to reality)?

[The Engineer]

You are comparing me to a computer, now when a computer is considered more advanced than human, I will be considered more human than you... oh but you knew that?

I'm quite astonished you got that one.

No, computers aren't more advanced than humans.

I think you're collective understanding of non-sequitur is misguided, allow me to demonstrate: .

Frustrating huh? But what? You still think I'm going to give you proof... ok now turn the mirror around, what did you just do to me??? Frustrating huh???

Now I've shown you a picture of yourself, return to reality without looking for it... where is it?

Ergo reality exists without proof.

Congratulations! I have no idea what you are talking about!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Let me know if this is new to you.

It would have to be comprehsible in order to be new to us. Please explain more clearly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

This is troubling.

You do not know how to even attempt to refer to something indirectly... because I was presumptuous about giving you an example? Sorry.

Just think "refer to something indirectly... how?" Then give an answer, the best that you are able:

I will accept anything, but to start off with, I need to see an example of how you would do it, otherwise I have no idea where I am going off track.

Please, give an example of something indirect:

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is troubling.

You do not know how to even attempt to refer to something indirectly... because I was presumptuous about giving you an example? Sorry.

There is far more likely a problem with communication. You aren't being clear.

Just think "refer to something indirectly... how?" Then give an answer, the best that you are able

What does "refer to something indirectly" mean? I don't know what you are trying to convey here.


eudaimonia,

Mark