ha, no, drugs and booze were a big part of the driving force behind david's side of the book, even he admits that

we'll probably finish it eventually, but it needs a lot of revision work, that neither of us really felt like doing, and i still dont really feel like doing...mostly just because im really really fucking tired....

I'd offer to help, but my input likely wouldn't be something you're looking for lol

oh we're open to all sorts of ideas, but the writing process really requires the both of us actively working on it, which has happened a lot less lately...and on top of that, it's more of a us discussing things, and writing out our ideas afterwards, so it doesnt really work to bring in third parties (even when we just tried to have other people edit it, we didnt really get much done when a third person was involved)

Believe you me, I absolutely ADORE philosophy. But, that said, this question is ultimately pointless.

I make that claim because there are two different viewpoints (those two viewpoints being the exact opposite of each other). The empiricalists: Hobbes, Locke, More, etc., believe that your senses provide adequate proof that your surroundings are really there; the solipsits: Aristotle, Descartes, etc., believe that only through logic and reason can you ASSUME that your surroundings are really there, without ever fully knowing if they exist.

So, really, this topic can never be resolved. You must simply take a side.

And which side do you fall on?

I would consider myself a solipsist, but not to the point of thinking some people see green as blue or whatever.

I agree with the empiricalists, because it assumes less (Occam's Razor).

in most cases i go with occam's razor, but i find solipsism more fun to think about

Very true, very true. It is quite fun to think about things that you can't possibly find the answer to. Why do you think we have so many religious debates, when it is impossible to prove or disprove religion?

well you can prove religion on a personal level, not so much with solipsism

Ah you mean you can make yourself BELIEVE that religion exists... even though you cannot prove it to yourself. That's why it's called "faith."