Oh, you mean like how I don’t believe in an objective reality beyond my senses because of absence of evidence. And how believing in reality because you don’t personally agree with the evidence against it is unsound.
Hard solipsism is self defeating. If you stand by your argument, you’re arguing with someone in whose existence you don’t belief. If you don’t stand by it, you’re agreeing that solipsism is useless and worse, pragmatism demands it be ignored. Go troll someone else.
Have you ever played Mass Effect? I really like it, and a big factor in that is the dialogue wheel. You can have long, personal discussions with fictional characters. Then again, it’s not perfect, because you only have a set number of prewritten choices of what to say. I always wanted to have a holodeck like in Star Trek, so I could debate philosophy with Socrates. And when character.ai came out, that’s the first thing I did.
I like arguing with people whose existence I don’t believe in.
Oh, you mean like how I don’t believe in an objective reality beyond my senses because of absence of evidence. And how believing in reality because you don’t personally agree with the evidence against it is unsound.
Hard solipsism is self defeating. If you stand by your argument, you’re arguing with someone in whose existence you don’t belief. If you don’t stand by it, you’re agreeing that solipsism is useless and worse, pragmatism demands it be ignored. Go troll someone else.
Have you ever played Mass Effect? I really like it, and a big factor in that is the dialogue wheel. You can have long, personal discussions with fictional characters. Then again, it’s not perfect, because you only have a set number of prewritten choices of what to say. I always wanted to have a holodeck like in Star Trek, so I could debate philosophy with Socrates. And when character.ai came out, that’s the first thing I did.
I like arguing with people whose existence I don’t believe in.