Alan4discussion. Thanks for your response...

I hope you are finding this discussion interesting.

Yes I am. As you said in an earlier post though I'm not sure we're going to agree...As I've said...some of my earlier posts were confusing due to my use of terms...I'm not sure I can make my terms clearer. Now I think our disagreement stems from fundamentally different world-views which requires an unfeasible amount of discussion to overcome.

You have only produced claims and contradictions, too vague to be tested or falsified and no evidence whatever to support them.

This sums up our difference I think....you are a dyed in the wool empiracist...you require empirical evidence to support a claim. The argument I'm presenting is a rational argument...by which I mean it derives its validity (you may think I'm flattering myself here but you take my point I trust) from rational axioms...first principles if you will. I am playing the part of the ancient greek philosopher whereas you are the enlightenment scientist...to use a historical analogy.

My position cannot provide empirical evidence for anything...by definition...it's an argument which addresses the nature of perception itself.

It's a bit like Descartes and his question concerning the nature of what can be known....how do we KNOW that this isn't all just a dream? We can't use empirical evidence since anything we percieve might just be part of the dream itself...what's required is a rational analysis. Basically this is the sort of thing my position addresses...it's not one that makes use of (or can make use of) empirical evidence.

I hope we can simply agree that we differ on this subject.