The philosophical question you’re raising is known as solipsism, which is the idea that one can only be sure of the existence of their own mind and not of anything external to it. While it’s an interesting concept to explore, proving the absolute reality of the external world can be challenging.

Philosophers have debated these questions for centuries, and there isn’t a definitive answer. However, there are some common responses and arguments:

Pragmatism: While you might not be able to prove the absolute reality of the external world, it is generally more practical and beneficial to assume its existence. The way we navigate and interact with the world is based on the assumption that it is real.

Consensus Reality: The fact that multiple people can agree on the existence of certain things suggests a shared reality. If others can perceive and interact with the same objects or events as you do, it adds weight to the argument that there is an external reality.

Scientific Method: Science provides a systematic way of understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and verification. While it may not provide absolute certainty, the scientific method has proven to be a reliable way to gain knowledge about the external world.

Testability: While you may question the authenticity of your perceptions, you can still make predictions and test them against your experiences. For example, if you drop an object, you can predict that it will fall, and when it does, it provides some validation of the external reality.

Regarding your doubt about whether people are real or if the responses are from AI, the same principles can apply. If there is consistency in responses, coherence in conversations, and a shared understanding among users, it adds credibility to the reality of the interaction.

It’s important to note that these responses don’t necessarily provide absolute certainty but offer practical and reasonable ways to engage with the external world. The nature of reality is a complex and debated topic in philosophy, and there may never be a conclusive answer.

Consider this: What does it matter if everything is an illusion?

Does it change anything? Would the answer give any insight or provide any value?

I’m generally of the opinion that, no, the answer to the question doesn’t matter. Even if everything is an illusion, then that just is reality. Whether you think things exist outside your mind or whether you believe everything is a figment of your imagination, both are reality. Knowing which of the two is true makes no difference.

You can’t really, as others have pointed out, but I like Philip K Dick’s definition of reality: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

This is a great philosophical question, people have been asking themselves this for a very long time. Some have answers: You may have heard “Cogito ergo sum.”, by Rene Descartes. The context of this quote is that it is a logical conclusion, after the border began purposefully trying to show what really REALLY exists, as he chose to doubt about the existence of everything.

After a lot of thinking and writing he came to the conclusion that there is no way for you to know that your life isn’t just a hallucination, projected unto your brain by a daemon, however, there is one thing you CAN be sure of: If you are asking yourself these questions, you are thinking, that is undeniable you 100% experience your thoughts first hand, and therefore it is safe to say that because you can think, you can be sure you exist. Cogito, ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am)

“Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.”

You can’t. But it wouldn’t make a difference if it were a solipsistic reality or not. Just don’t be a dick. For all appearances, you and I both exist.

What’s the point of me trying to prove something to a figment of my imagination? Nice try, brain image. You almost had me.

You can’t. Best you can do is learn not to think about it.

Dr. Samuel Johnson (writer of the original English dictionary) was posed this theory. In response (probably a little drunk) he ran up and kicked a giant stone, saying “I refute it thus!” He broke his foot.

Probably don’t do that but I guess you see his point.

I mean… Your brain is just making shit up.

Color? It’s the brain interpreting the visible wavelengths of light. Maybe what you see for red isn’t the same as anyone else. Maybe the difference between high and low pitched sounds, sound different to each individual because the experience of hearing a sound is, again, just the brain’s interpretation of data.

The data can be the same for everyone, and the experience can be totally different because the brain interprets that data differently for each person. It certainly would explain why some people like subjective things and others do not; such as colors, music, flavors, etc.

I can’t prove that I exist, let alone that you exist. Maybe neither of us really exist and this is all just a simulation. Maybe it’s not even a real simulation, but a figment of the imagination of another being who is simply dreaming about a simulation.

You can’t, because in fact your brain really creates images.

Healthy person most commonly sees images based on the light their eyes receive, but based on the quality of information you may interpret it wrongly. Especially light captured by side sight – here brain draws a big part of picture itself.

People with schozophrenia can see and hear non-existing people like we see real people. It can take them a lot of reasoning to verify if person they are seeing in fact real.

The only thing you can know for sure is that you exist.

Absolutely nothing else can be proven to exist with 100% certainty.

You’re actually a Boltzmann brain that just randomly popped into existence thinking all your past interactions were real.

Define ‘prove’.

Before you can determine how to prove something, you must determine what evidence would constitute proof and under what conditions you might be able to collect that evidence.

To put it another way, if you want to prove something to be true then you must be able to imagine a situation which would prove it to be false, which is to say that it must be falsifiable.

And then apply Alder’s razor:

If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.

More important question: If we didn’t exist who are you talking to?