Ok time to bring technical philisophic terms into the argument. This thread seems to be arguing between "Primacy of Existance" and "Primacy of Consciousness." The simple version of these two:
Existance: It still exists even though Im not looking at it.
Consciousness: If I dont see it (not conscious of it) it doesnt exist, if my conscious wants it to be a toster it is a toaster.
Now, lets look at "Primacy of Consciousness" a little more. When you break it down it says that, A (any object in the universe) is or does what your Consciousness ordains. It says that A does not have to equal A if consciousness doesnt want it to. The problem with this belief is that it rejects the fundamental axiom of Identity, that A=A.
To back up my claim about the Axiom of Identity here is a small discussion and defense of it. The Axiom of Identity says that whatever object you have be it an apple or a stone, it can not also be a leaf. A is A, you cant have your cake and eat it, too. If you except this than only one side is right.
However if you dont except this, then A no longer has to equal A, and therefore two concepts about one point can both be right. Or contradictions exist in reality and any concept is correct thus, my belief is correct whether you except my argument or not. hehe
[note: most philosophic definitions and examples taken from my fav. philosopher Ayn Rand]
