One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True
Prove : Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. 
Absolute : Not qualified or diminished in any way; total. 
True : In accordance with fact or reality. 
False : Not according with truth or fact; incorrect. 
Reality : The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. 
Objective : Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. 
Physical Experience : Any and all information that is received by the brain of an individual though the use of bodily senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).
Acceptance of this debate places the burden of proof on Pro.
 Oxford Dictionary
is reality true? another option is that imagination is true, you know, where superman comes from and all that
close your eyes and read on, right now, close them and read, close them come on.... you are getting there....
logic is absolute, cause and effect is logic, i open my eyes and i see, cause and effect, i am not blind, i am life, and seeing is the confirmation of that, so that is to say if you close your eyes, it is possible, that you will never see again, but it is also possible that you will see, when will you know.. and if you choose to believe your eyes will never open again when you close them, why not just go ahead and read the bible to
if i am with you physically, and i say to you, hey man, i am being now, i am now, you cant argue with that
i could be a bot trying to make you think i am human, but i could also be a human trying to make you think i am a bot
to me, you are light on my screen and a story in my mind
fact=truth, not true and false
true can not exist without false
anything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, true is the opposite of false and truth, and past is the opposite of future, now is matter.
if there is no false answer to 1+1, then how could there be a true answer, and how do i percieve of a false answer, equation without my imaginaition
objective experience, very much depends on a mind
A common philosophical argument/concept is the "Brain in a Vat" theory , which is the premise for the popular movie, The Matrix . This presents the possibility that you, in objective reality, are merely a brain that is being fed information that describes the reality that you are currently experiencing. If true, then that indicates that your brain is receiving fabricated information that is interpreted as sensory information, and that *everything* that you think you know and experience could then be false.
For example, you provide the statement that indicates that, due to my sight, I can see the words on my computer screen and know that they exist. There exists the possibility that the information I am receiving, via sight, is entirely false and is just fabricated by an unknown source and projected/fed to my brain, which then has no reason to not assume it is true. "Seeing" is not a confirmation that you can see, but rather, the confirmation that your brain is receiving information that it interprets as "sight".
You also gave example regarding logic, and 1+1. These things do not physically exist in reality. Logic is a conceptual tool employed by our reasoning, which exists only in one's own mind. Similarly, numbers are imaginary concepts that do not exist in reality. For instance, there can be two apples, but the concept of "two" without any associated, tangible element does not exist.
At the end, you use the term "objective experience". This doesn't make any sense, since experience exists within each individual's mind, which contradicts the definition of "objective", provided in Round #1.
In conclusion, the philosophy of the "Brain in a Vat" automatically casts a possibility of falsehood upon our physical experience, thus, undermining any argument you can provide that attempts to prove that your physical experience is absolutely true. In order to prove the premise of this debate true, you must be able to defeat the principle of this philosophical notion.
Note: I am not trying to use this argument as a cheap win, but rather to demonstrate that our perception is unquestionably fallible, and cannot be absolutely trusted to determine objective reality. I could also use lesser examples, such as, seeing a white shirt under a perfectly set blue light; your brain will "know" that the shirt is blue when, in fact, it is white in reality.
 Mind and Philosophy - http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com...
 Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org...
information is false and truth, matter is true, 0 and 1
self=see life flow
to say you are a brain in a vat you would have to say reality is false, is reality false? and is imagination true? possibilities are imaginary
know=no other possibility=true
a computer can never work my brain, becasue data is not mental, not information(disproves the brain in a vat theory)
i know the light on my screen, certainty is a personal experience, i am certain that i have 5 fingers right now... and that im typing with both my hands, that im reading these words
so everything you see is just a confirmation that your brain works huh, you dont actually see anything
my eyes do not recieve information, light is matter
destruction=turn my back
how do i confirm that i can see if seeing isnt the confirmation that i can see? .. or how do you determine the shape of a cloud
it isnt easy or natural to cut open a head, so as far as i know, i dont have a brain, nature flows in the path of least resistance
cause and effect is logic, reality is logic
numbers are imaginary, but math is absolute, if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear
logic+experience of it=reason(concept, simulation of logic)
there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive
sense=objective experience, does make sense....
is an apple in your hand not an object?... do you not experience that object..
possibilities are imaginary, stories, not real
know is not possible, know is no other possibility, absolute. possibility has a positive and negative side
It is possible for information to be in agreement with reality, and is thus, not guaranteed to be false.
I can find no definition of the word "matter" that makes sense in the context you have provided.
:: vi_spex said, "to say you are a brain in a vat you would have to say reality is false, is reality false? and is imagination true? possibilities are imaginary"
To say such a thing would mean that the reality that you *perceive* as true would be, in actuality, false. Since your sensory input is your "Physical Experience", your "Physical Experience" would then be false. Since this situation remains a possibility, then the proposition of this debate remains false.
:: vi_spex said, "a computer can never work my brain, becasue data is not mental, not information(disproves the brain in a vat theory)"
All of the knowledge that you possess about brains and computers would be rendered completely invalid, as that knowledge is derived from your perception and experience of the reality that your perceive. All of that could just be fabricated (false) information that is being fed to your brain in a vat. Due to this, your reasoning does not disprove the theory.
To further delve into the principle of this theory, the title "Brain in a Vat" holds an assumption, in itself. This title implies that it is fact that a brain is required for existence, when in reality, we have attained this knowledge from our experience in our perceived reality. This means this information could be fabricated, as well, and that existence does not rely on a brain as we know it. The reason that the title contains the word "brain" is so that the concept is easier to grasp.
You stated that you *know* that you have five fingers, and that you *know* that you are [were] typing with your hands and seeing the words on the screen. You are convinced that this is so because there is no reason to doubt that the information [evidence] received by your brain is false. However, if all of the information [evidence] is false, then what you *know* will be false.
If all of your senses are falsified, your brain could be fooled into thinking that you had six fingers. You only know that you have five fingers because of all of the sensory evidence you have to support it. However, if all of that evidence has been fake this whole time, you could actually have six fingers but *know* that you have five.
:: vi_spex said, "so everything you see is just a confirmation that your brain works huh, you dont actually see anything"
Your eye registers light that enter the eye and strikes the retina. Embedded in the retina are millions of light sensitive cells, which come in two main varieties: rods and cones. Rods are used for monochrome vision in poor light, while cones are used for color and for the detection of fine detail. Cones are packed into a part of the retina directly behind the retina called the fovea, which is responsible for sharp central vision.  Nerves that connect the brain with the eyes, ears, nose, and throat and with various parts of the head, neck, and trunk are called cranial nerves.  The information from the eye is sent to your brain via synapses along the cranial nerves. This leaves a gap between the eye and the brain where the information can change or be changed, resulting in a difference between what the eye "sees" and what the brain perceives.
All of your senses operate in a similar manner, so no matter what you believe you see, hear, etc. is being transmitted from the appropriate receptor cells through the cranial nerves to your brain. This leaves room for the possibility of error or miscommunication between the senses and the brain. The theory in question postulates that your nerves are "highjacked" and the transmission is replaced with artificial, fabricated information.
:: vi_spex said, "numbers are imaginary, but math is absolute, if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear"
You would still require experience or knowledge of what skin is in order to make that assessment. This knowledge is gleaned from memory, which is the result of previous physical experiences.
:: vi_spex said, "there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive"
How do you know that you can even die in reality? You only are aware of the concept of death because of previous physical experience, and only believe it because all of the knowledge you have gained supports the notion. However, if all of that information has been falsified, the reality of it might even be that you are eternal.
:: vi_spex said, "sense=objective experience, does make sense...."
:: vi_spex said, "is an apple in your hand not an object?... do you not experience that object.."
That is not what the word "objective" means; it doesn't mean "relating to objects". Look the the definition in Round #1.
Round #2 Conclusion:
None of the statements provided have disproved the possibility of the "Brain in a Vat" theory, and thus, the subject of the debate cannot be true. Given that ALL of your knowledge and memories would be COMPLETELY fabricated in this scenario, you cannot use ANY knowledge or memories to disprove it. You have one more round to attempt to disprove this theory. Good luck!
 Merck Manuals - http://www.merckmanuals.com...
Live Science.com - http://www.livescience.com...
imagination is false, and physical experience is true, 0 and 1. know is true, belief is doubt
information is the opposite of matter
information is false and truth
you havnt explained anything, data is not information, not mental
in any case.. possibilities are imaginary, not real
imagination is false
only know is true
i dont know information, know is matter, unknown is information
i have no conviction that my physical experience is real, it is by default
sensory experiecne is true, not false
i dont believe in evidence, i know my experience of now
i dont believe in cells, dna, particels atoms, all imaginary, not real
i am life, therfore i can die, if i couldnt die i couldnt be life, if i cant get sick i cant be healthy
physical experience is transformation
the matrix theory.. has just been disproved, you have done nothing to disprove it but assert you have disproved it
Imagination : The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. 
Note the portion "...not present to the senses." We are referring to the senses, in this debate. Imagination is totally irrelevant.
Belief : An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 
You are erroneously using the word "Belief". If I understand you correctly, your definition is also irrelevant to this debate.
Information : Facts provided or learned about something or someone. 
Fact : A thing that is known or proved to be true. 
How is it that you can say that "information is false"?? You are wrong, here.
:: vi_spex said, " you havnt explained anything, data is not information, not mental"
data : Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis. 
This word, "data", is irrelevant to this debate. The main point of this debate is to bring to light that the "information" gather by your sensory cells must be physically transmitted to your brain. This transmission is subject to error (misperceptions).
:: vi_spex said, "in any case.. possibilities are imaginary, not real"
real : Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. 
If there are possibilities, how do you determine which one is "real" and that the others are "imaginary"? The information gathered by your senses determines what is "real". If you see a blue shirt in a store window as you drive by, here are two possibilities as to why it "appears" blue:
1.) The shirt is actually blue
2.) There is a blue light shining on a white shirt.
So, given these two possibilities, how can you possibly "know" which one is real? Both of them would fully coincide with the information gained from your eyes, so it is impossible to tell which is true and which is false. Do you just pick one to call real and deem the others imaginary?
:: vi_spex said, "i dont believe in evidence, i know my experience of now"
Evidence : The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
-or- : Signs or indications of something. 
Evidence is *why* you know. Your senses *are* a means of gathering evidence! Evidence does not exclusively mean physical evidence. The information gleaned from your senses is evidence.
The initial line of my argument in Round #1 is:
"one cannot prove that their physical experience is absolutely true in respect to objective reality."
P1 : Physical experience is sensory information received by the brain.
P2 : Objective reality is what determines what is true.
C1 : Physical experience is only true if it matches objective reality.
P3 : One's sensory information, or physical experience, of objective reality is not infallible.
C2 : By C1 & P3, one's physical experience can be false, and therefore, not absolutely true.
P1 : This is clearly defined in Round #1, which you have agreed to by accepting this debate.
P2 : The initial statement of this debate states, "...true in respect to objective reality". This means that the "correctness" of our perception is respective of the actual truth in the reality beyond the errors and limitations of our perception. By definition, object reality exists outside of the mind.
C1 : Based on premises P1 and P2, this means that something that is perceived is only true if it coincides with objective reality. If something is perceived differently than it is in objective reality, then it is not true.
P3 : It is possible for one to perceive reality incorrectly. One can be mistaken with one or more senses and thus, have an erroneous perception of objective reality.
C2 : The logical conclusion is that one cannot proof that one's personal experience is absolutely (100%) true regarding objective reality. The indisputable possibility that error can occur in our perception prevents the proposed statement from being true.
 The Oxford Dictionary
belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it
a fact is a past observation, fact=knowledge=memory of physical experience
i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it
possibilities are false, not real, as i dont know, possibility has 2 sides, imagination is unknown
facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, truth is in the past, imaginaiton represent future
the light of the sun comes from the sun, i percieve it with my eyes, my eyes are true, i am my eyes, without light, my eyes would cease to exist in the long run
if the light of a match is wood burning, how can the light shine without fire, and how can there be fire without something to be on fire, like wood, so the match burning is light, light being the balancing point between the match, and the match burning, so light is matter, as light cant exist without matter
physical is something, mental is nothing
physical experience is matter, matter is the opposite of information, matter is true, information is false and truth
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|