Quoting Christophe Grandsire <[log in to unmask]>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson :
> >Eh, no. It doesn't say anything about what other things there may be in
> >the "real world" - the ego _could_ make up the entirety of it, but there's
> >nothing saying it does.
> Except that in order to populate your definition of "real world" of other
> things besides "ego", you have to *assume* their existence. And don't
> forget what you said (I paraphrase): the real world is what I *cannot* not
> believe it exists. Well, under this definition, "real world" *has* to be
> "ego", since it's the only thing one *cannot* not believe it exists.
> Whether it's populated with anything else is irrelevant. You gave a
> definition, I gave the consequence of it.

I don't think I said that? Don't have my original mail around to prove either
way however.

At any rate, what I meant was that the "real world" is what exists. What I
believe nor not believe to exist has nothing to do with it, except that I can
conclude on the ground of logical consistency that I exist, and therefore am
in it.