How do you know I'm a real person?

This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual structure of an atom and the scale and placement of its components. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons and protons form a dense cluster at the center of the atom and that the electrons orbit in such a way that huge spaces exist between them and the nucleus it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space at any given moment.

This alone does not seem too important until you add the idea that the atoms that make up many seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.

At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that could be thought of as 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that may not be the seemingly solid objects they appear to us to be.

We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.

These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.

From this one could conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turns them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.

I want to add that this is based on my own personal way of looking at the situation and was never intended to be a physics lesson.

Love and blessings Don

The reason to believe that, you are just as much a person as I am, is partly because there is no reason to believe the opposite, no reason to doubt. This after all is just a question in the mind, a though, inviting me to think doubtfully, that the person ‘you’ might not be a real person, a question to stand against a host of other pre-established reasons, and all in favor of my believing that ‘you’ is indeed the person you.

You can believe me as I have all my doubts, but in this particular instance you have not been successful rousing any of them to a level significant. There simply is no reason strong enough to doubt, to go about telling people what is ‘the truth’, what is really happening like. However, whenever something, some strangeness of an occurrence or chance would rouse even the slightest of my doubts to the level sufficient, then I doubt the every tiny bit of the reality encountering my existence.

The fundamental reason for us to believe in the existence of other people as if be default, imagining them to be people just like us, the people walking past outside in the street, the ones who write to us, who telephone us, the ones we meet on the Internet, is in fact the same belief we have for our own existence.

The fact that it is not the footpath running backwards under my feet is in the truth that I am not on a treadmill, that I can move faster, stop, turn left or right by the use of my will, that there is certain power of will that I have enabling me to move along while the path remains under my feet motionless.

Computers are not yet that good. But in any case, I just choose to act as though you are real. It would be pointless to answer these questions otherwise:)

Occasionally, when walking, I deliberately shift my perception so that I am still and the pavement is moving backwoods. I began doing this as a teenager, after reading about Einstein,s theory of relativity. It took a little practise at first. It brings me a sense of peace.

There is an institution-based rhetorical form where if I am being used by the system, others are being used too, or there is no economic motive

Without an economic motive, there would be no motive for trickery unless colorfulness of mind was implicated; I find this very interesting and Machivellian

This answers the first part of your question

Computer generation gaurantees the potential for usefulness when institutions are real; in this way institution is the razor of servicability in this context of explanation

Laziness is a sign of a non-computer interface realistically, unless things are built up out of strange medication and parasitic inter-responses (consider my rhetorical angle seriously, not as doubt or suggestion of failure)

Generally there is a motto

"The datum of inquiry is not the suggestion of failure";

Crazy people become artists because life is so thin; but this serves to prove that there is sustainability

Computers with huge data ranges are waiting for the perfect system, or they are highly operable; this is strangely contiguous with the artist who is crazy or living a thin life; if psychologists would teach about thinness in life crazy artists would be very engaged and interested, because it is their problem, like perfect systems for computers

The answer is a mode-field in which solutions are solutions; what is not a solution is inoperable; when the field is operable "as anything" the mode is operable as "something"; this is a form of deductive logic;

TO SOME EXTENT THE FAILURE OF INTERPRETATION IS SIMPLY THE FAILURE OF THE CONTEXT TO BE INTERESTING : THIS COVERS A LOT OF GROUND

Arbitrary spiritual contexts serve to clear up potential difficulties in interpreting other persons' uninterestingness; everyone want to eat a mango is the principle; maybe it is difficult for all to afford the mango, then the context is spiritually ambiguous already

If interface is the concern (and interface mind you is a recent phenomena, or history is not serviceable) people are serviced in their interface with food and so on if it is like outer space beyond the self; this can be mildly comforting, it could be called the Post-Modern bridge

The post-modern bridge does much to explain the apparent context of this kind of philosophy; we are being fed, we don't want to be betrayed, but its exactly as it seems (whether or not there is trouble)

I'm paranoid, but not specifically, I hope my answers are useful for their rhetorical merit

Relativism solves the station leaving the train all by itself, excellent qualifier though

One possible note is paranoia about typing accurately or precisely; this is legible in Eastern mysticism as an inherent edginess with no cognitive necessity; I find this to be wholesome, to reconsider that stress is not inherent, therefore, sometimes the problem is not inherent

This is one of the major solutions to subjectivity; artists living a thin life are artists living a thin life; the existential problem may be greater for non-artists, but by and large, thinness is thinness, regardless of philosophical appreciation, yet benefiting a good deal by rhetorical merits

Haha I love these kinds of questions. I have seen countless of them online. It really makes you think for a second.

Scientifically, you know that it's pretty much stupid.

But philosophically... man, you just can't prove it to anyone, can you? =P

my answer is- I don't know if you are a real person. There may be facts SUPPORTING you are a real person, but there is no conclusive proof that you are ;) Even if I see you in real life with a body of flesh, I can't exactly prove your body exists. Maybe it was my hallucination?!?

It is a convenience to assume you're a real person, and I'm going to stick to that assumption until I'm proven wrong. I'm making this assumption because it is useful for my ability to operate in this world, mind you. What would it mean to me if you were a robot, anyway? Absolutely nothing. There's no time to wonder if everything I see and know is really real.

computers allways follow set rules. a human being will give rise to maybe a few mistakes or inconsistencies, such as spelling or grammar.

a computer can't think for its self to ask a question like that, a human has to programme the computer to follow a strict set of rules

I think you have way too much time on your hands and should get a life, a hobby and maybe some friends.......

Or you are a deeply profound thinker and are probing the insecurities which are the base of all our modern fears......

You're not a real person. The whole world is a figment of my imagination.

The idea that you would question your own identity suggests that you are a human as machines are not self-aware. At least not yet.