Well, I'll just say this. You can be still be happy and vigilant. Also, wonderful opportunities are whatever you make them out to be. In the end, it is your experience. Your dream. Enjoy your heroism.

Epiphenomenalism . . . nice. Not many are aware of that philosophical musing, which is all it really is. But again, you're speaking merely in terms of the subjective (i.e. truth is what we say it is . . . perception), and we undoubtedly know that some subjective qualities are true. 2 + 2 = 4 in a base ten mathematical system simply because we deem it so. So, what is 4? In a base ten mathematical system, it's 0 + 4, 1+ 3, 10 - 6, 20/5 and so on and so on. All of those are a subjective quality of the objective 4. Now, how much of said subjective quality is needed until we fully grasp the objective "idea" (I know, I know . . . perception) of 4?

The question is........how do we know that 4, or anything for that matter, is truly objective?

Just because you and I, and millions of others, can agree that 2 + 2 = 4 does not make 4 objective. From your point of view everyone you talk to is a perception of your brain. Shake their hand. That's also perception. Get hit by a ball. That's perception, and only you are capable of perceiving. You cannot prove without a doubt that others are doing the same.

But there must be some degree of objectivity, right? There is, but the problem is not wether objectivity exists or not. The problem is the current definition of objectivity. You can't honestly prove that there is an external reality out there. You only know what your brain can perceive and what it preceives is limited.

For all intents and purposes, the honest meaning of objectivity is simply this....

Objectivity is the observance of your own limitations.

I don't follow . . . without an objective goal, the subjective (and every other aspect of perception) would be nil . . . and nihilistic speeches are best reserved for wannabe-punk-rockers.

We're going in circles here.

My point is that objectivity is a measure of one's own subjectivity and vice versa.

So ultimately the individual must make sense out of his/her own meaning of existence based on their perceptions.

Could it really be any other way?

no.

the individual is the perception no? not the other way around.

an order to percieve anything there must be an objective base. perception dictates that one must believe in an objective reality upon which my perception may filter

No that isn't sounding very likely you bastard motherfucker.

I am the only one, everything else is just an illusion cause by deprival of sex and no wonder - if i am the only one, there is no one to have sex with.

Now I'm even more depressed, thank you!

I never understood the puzzle behind the "tree falls in the forest" question. Of course it makes a sound. Things don't have to be perceived by the five senses of humans in order to be real. Think of everything going on in the universe that we don't know about. It's still going on whether we acknowledge it or not.

Contra - if there is no mind that would realize the universe, are the things still going on?

Agreed . . . you have to take into consideration that since we, as humans, don't know anything as an absolute, that perhaps there is nothing existing outside of our little worlds. Ergo, if I'm not in the woods to hear the tree fall, then perhaps it doesn't make a sound. I hate eastern philosophy, but in terms of philosophy itself, there's no absolute that the tree DOES make a sound despite the lack of someone's comprehending that it does.

The point is, you don't know. You might be able to reason one way or the other . . . yes the tree makes a sound . . . but you don't know. It's an impossible situation, ergo there's no answer to be derived.

I freely admit that I am dense about this and cannot wrap my head around the idea that everything is real only because I perceive it. If I were to suddenly evaporate and be gone, you will not cease to exist. I am what is temporary and fleeting and the universe will someday continue without me.

I'm hopelessly rooted to the idea that everything exists. You both explain the question well (better than anyone else ever has) but I'm a lost cause on this idea.

Well, that's the beautiful thing about philosophy: it allots for contradicitions. I too am under the general guideline that EVERYTHING exists . . . and by this, I'm going to even assert that unicorns exist (metaphysically, not physically) and God exists (metaphysically, not physically) and a Wickywackybuhtoon exists (metaphysically, not physiclally). What I mean is that philosophy more or less is obsessed with understanding existence, and there are very, very, very many ideas pertaining to the subject. I'm not going to go into them all, but I'll briefly mention that all of this was really set in motion by Descartes. Philosophers before him dealt with it as well, but it was Descartes that really brought the whole metaphysical vs' physical question into debate, in terms of existence.

Anywho, let me ask you: does a unicorn exist? Well, for most people, there initial response is no. It's not a physical creature, they cannot percieve it with their senses like they can with other physical entities (in other words, they can SEE it, maybe even HEAR it, but only in as much as it's on television or in a book). So, no unicorns don't exist . . . right?

Now let me ask, does God exist? And with that question, you're going to get a lot of varying answers. Some will say no, and some will say yes. And for those who say yes, it kind of goes without saying that God, like the unicorn, isn't a physical creature either. You cannot percieve Him like you can other physical entities . . . you can't perceive him like you can the unicorn! Sure, we have a mild idea of what God may look like . . . a man, with a long white beard, sitting on a throne. But compared to the unicorn (a horse-like creature with one horn), God's image is a mystery.

So, under that general principle . . . which seems to exist more, God or the unicorn? And further more, let me ask: does a Wickywackybuhtoon exist? Well, the obvious answer for most is no. But for someone who might say yes (albeit a philosopher or a student of philosophy) they're bound to say that its existence is weak at that, and not as justified as the unicorn, and certainly not as justified as God's.

There is a sort of varying level of justification for whether or not something does indeed exist. Certain philosophies think that the metaphysical aspects of existence are inane . . . some plainly just don't think they exist. And some metaphysicists think that physical aspects of existence are nil. So it's all over the place.

The point is . . . a tree falls, does it make a sound? Is it impossible to percieve a tree falling that DOES NOT make a sound? Is that not a possibility in existence? You claim that you are hopelessly rooted to the idea that everything exists . . . so is it possible, in existence, for a tree to fall without making a sound?

If a person is to speak from a position of knowledge rather than perception, the tree that falls MUST make a sound. What we know as (dare I say it) scientific fact dictates that the motion and effect of the falling tree will cause sound.

If a person speaks from a perspective point of view, then the tree which fell and had no witnesses has made no noise at all. You cannot hear what you cannot perceive. In that, I suppose it gets more complicated. Do we only perceive fact when it is there as solid evidence? If something were to fall in front of me, I know it will make a noise. However, if something were to fall while I was not present, there is no perception of the event and its effects, and as such to me there was no sound. Does this make fact and evidence themselves objects of perception, or subjects of perception?

And I hate to go slightly off-topic, but if any of that made no sense, do feel free to tell me to shut up. I'm afraid my knowledge of philosophy is confined to my thoughts rather than extended study.

so is it possible, in existence, for a tree to fall without making a sound?

yes it is. For a deaf person the tree won't make a sound, still, the existence is being proofed by his other senses. He can see it, he can smell it, he can feel the tree falling down. For this person the tree exists, even though he can not hear the wisper of air, nor the fall.

Same with the unicorn, or god question. Both exist, because I take it as a fact. Both may be just a thought of mine, but what exactly is the meaning of the word Existence. Are there really other galaxies? I never saw them myself, never felt, nor touched them, but they are there. But would they exist if I could not in this moment be able to Think?

What is the universe for a tree? Watter, air, Sun. Tree realizes his surrounding in a completely diferrent way, but still there is a universe for him. If there would not be the sun, no gravitation .. and so on.

Well ... I need a drink, I tired myself by these thoughts. Fuck .. does the drink exist?

Drink always exists. Alcohol is the only constant in an ever changing world... At least I hope it is.

this shakes the Einstein theory, lol

Bah, Einstein. Alcohol is the fuel on which the world runs, and it shall be forever. Amen.

ahhh, another anonym ... erm friend to our comming thread for friends of delicious ambrosium