dimreepr

They were also used in slaughterhouses, to calm the other animals.

I did try to nip this tangent in the bud, many post's ago, because it has no bearing on "cogito ergo sum" which can only be a belief.

But that's my point, given the context of this thread.

Indeed, but I'm unsure how it relates to this topic.

Lets stick to the topic. tar Your credulity is not required, the simple "fact" of the matter is, our senses are fallible and so can't be relied upon as any sort of proof against solipsism. If we take your example of the self drive car, the Tesla that crashed, did so because it's senses were fooled.

We aren't computers.

Ever woken from a dream convinced it was real? I used to wake up and get on with my day, only to wake again, often multiple times.

In Strange's example, did it look like the squares were the same shade? But they were, your belief has no bearing on reality, whether it makes sense or not. Personally I choose to labour under the belief that we do exist and, mostly, my senses are reasonably accurate in defining the world around me, until I'm shown otherwise; but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

It's not a new argument, essentially it's the same as tar's and contains the same flaws of logic; as Strange has shown ones senses can be fooled, you can't know they aren't being fooled now.

You really should stop deciding what others think, it's not helpful nor is it an excuse to change the goal.

FFS, did you even read strange's post?

Absolute what? You play fast and loose with that word, kinda the antonym of it's meaning.

That's great, can you do the same for god and save us all a lot of BS from those pesky believers?

It's not a requirement, it's an observation. Peer review has no place, if you can't be sure they exist. The point is there is no way to confirm solipsism isn't real.

Are you suggesting hallucinations don't exist?

Will you throw yourself on that bonfire?

http://www.plumbworld.co.uk/blog/wash/

Our microbiome isn't restricted to our gut.

Horny hairs .

Agreed, I just meant the conclusions.

Philosophy is never correct (IMO).

Then you're talking about the difference between reality and our best guess, so literally neither.

You need to be more specific, are you talking about empiricism or metaphysics? Edit. cross posted.

Phd

What makes you think philosophy and science are different?