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. >What's your definition? I consider the expression "real world" to be meaningless in most cases. The only times you will see me use it is as the expression "Real World(TM)" to refer to things I do when I'm not in front of the computer (in times when I simply live, I don't bother with the objectivity of reality or whatever. Even if this is a dream, I'm not aware enough of it to do whatever I want in it, so I don't bother trying :)) ). Otherwise, I don't use this expression and don't have a definition for it. Christophe Grandsire. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.