From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Fri, 14 Mar 2025, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2025-03-12, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Although I would add that no evidence beyond our senses   
   >> is necessary for the conclusion of a material world.   
   >   
   > I know. All that's needed is the believe/faith that there   
   > is such a thing.   
      
   Nope. No faith necessary. I just open my eyes and there it is. Denying   
   that opens one up to the refutation and collapse into eternal doubt and   
   solipsism.   
      
   Note that if you doubt your senses, logically you also must doubt yourself   
   as well, and any conversation, without common ground, then becomes   
   meaningless.   
      
   >> All we need is one instance of falsification, which no   
   >> one has evern provided us. I win! ;)   
   >   
   > Sure. In your mind. Uh huh.   
      
   Nope. =)   
      
   >> Hmm... on the other hand... I think I blame it on my ego! ;)   
   >   
   > Since when do you "have" an ego? What is it being referred   
   > to as 'you' that "has" an ego? Are 'you' and 'ego' the   
   > same? If so, why do you separate them by saying there's   
   > some 'you' that *has* an 'ego'? Isn't that saying you   
   > have yourself? Doesn't that go without saying?   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)