Which still has to be perceived

I dont remember the Matrix

I watched it a long time ago

For a dude who lives in a computer program.

We dont live in a computer program

How do you know that?

“Maybe you’re wrong” is an accusation that must be supported by specific evidence. It cannot be uttered without context, grounds, or basis, i.e., arbitrarily.

Onus of proof is on you.

We have no evidence of it

I cant be asked to prove a negative

Empericism is commie propaganda, bruh.

It is possible, the skeptic argument declares, for man to be in error; therefore, it is possible that every individual is in error on every question. This argument is a non sequitur; it is an equivocation on the term “possible.”

>Because we arent omniscient we cant know anything

There would be no way to know either way.

I don't think there would be any significant difference anyway.

You are making the positive claim that existence exists outside of our mind. The onus of proof is on you.

Because existence has to be focused on

Awareness is not a passive but active state, when you close your eyes does everything vanish metaphysically

Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.

Would something you perceive in a dream exist as much as something you perceive while awake?

No, because it does not consist with reality

How do you know you are awake?

Through introspection and checking the facts of reality

Would you be able to know when you are dreaming?

Non contradictory identification

I dont dream much if I do I dont remember it

Some acid wouldn't be a bad idea for you.

Open the doors of perception, bruh.

There's a difference between someone on drugs and someone off drugs

Life is a trip, bruh. Don't forget to bring a towel.

@halfthink You should pick up Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology if you have already read the novels

I haven't read the novels, only a bunch of excerpts from her philosophical writting.

Atlas is great

So is The Fountainhead

I don't like what little I've read of Rand, and particularly don't like objectivists.

I wouldnt pin Objectivists on Rand as a lot of them are evasive and misunderstand her work

They are more mixed than Objectivists

Just as everyone misunderstands marx.

Well Marx is misunderstood

He's incoherent.

That might be why