Lol, ok. What is this “people” of which you speak?
“People” is a plural of “human being”. “Human being” is a designation for a certain bundle of impressions.
I hope you aren’t waiting for me, SS. This is your argument.
I’m just a cheer-leader.
You miss this?
'Cause Saully, that answers your question right there.
No, Silly, that only expresses your dogma.
Oh, so I’m not experiencing, interacting, and speaking to people who are there? I don’t exist? It’s dogma?
This is all thought. You exist be it you’re being imagined or not. You exist. You experience. You interact. You speak. You can’t tell me that you don’t exist, Saully. I won’t believe you because I experience you.
Hey, this thread took off!
Yeppers, and now I’m bored 'cause Sauwelios hasn’t replied yet.
And look closer. Here we have an opportunity to examine discourse at a deeper level. The moral tone is decisive in her specific use of words. Notice how she didn’t call him “Saully” this time.
There is a very real pattern to this behavior, that is indeed a dynamic quality to human discourse. We suspect that by calling him his proper screen name, she is offering a subtle apology in case he has stopped cooresponding with her because she has consistently called him “Saully.”
However, the formal motive of her intentions are two-fold; she is, by spelling his name correctly, also apologizing for being rude in general, and this is done by the secret notice of the use of words, that is, until we just examined it did we notice its intentional structures. That she is apologizing for several things by apologizing for one apparantly, for it would be suspicious to assume that such an offering would have been provided had Saully not ended the correspondence.
Context! Two languages are being spoken here. What is not said creates a context.
Truely fascinating.
Was I right or was I right, SS?
You are calling a truce.
What’s truly fascinating is that I can’t disagree with what you just said because you’re not Saully. 
I’m late in the game, but I figured I’d play anyway. Chugathu! I don’t know what it is, but since I said it it must exist? Can’t we say a word like “nothing” which stands in for the concept of “absolute nothing” without “absolute nothing” being a something? If we can’t, is my “chugathu” a “something”?
I think nothing is a concept that is BOTH the absence and the presence of. It is paradoxical.
Ditto.
Heid….Heidi…Heidegger?
Who the hell is Heidegger?
He is a philosopher of whom SIATD once asked:
“First, is this a man we can trust?”
Karl Jaspers once asked Heidegger how someone as uneducated as Hitler could rule Germany. “Education is quite irrelevant,” Heidegger responded. “Just look at his wonderful hands.”
Or as Heidegger might have said: “To do, one must first be.” 
I know, really.
<–Look at my wonderful German hands, LOOK.
You don’t suppose I couldn’t rule the world?
Heidegger may be a nut but he knows the German way.
Who needs a brain anyway. I can do kung-fu.
Reality can shove it. I’m being imagined.
Apparently so does Ben Harper. Damn Germans. 
Well, that certainly is a good thing to hear, and something I would like to believe. That you experience me, that is. Or rather, to still make a subtle distinction, that there is a bundle of impressions referred to as Sauwelios (or Saully) that is being experienced by a being that refers to the bundle of impressions it experiences as “itself” (or herself) as SilentSoliloquy. The reverse is true, so why should that not be true? It is just that I cannot know for sure. But I am willing to go with that hypothesis. In that case, there is not only Being experiencing itself as Sauwelios, and from the perspective I call “mine”, but also, Being experiencing itself as SilentSoliloquy, and from the perspective I call “yours” (though you may call it “mine”). This is possible and certainly looks that way. But appearances can be deceptive. I am willing to believe in this world of appearances, to avail myself of the conviction that it is real. Just don’t think I have ceased to be a nihilist. I am still a scientist according to the definition that is my signature. This is not a white flag. It is still a black flag, but it has a tiny white corner.
If it weren’t for drowning in complex thoughts, you could see like the child you used to be.
Don’t let it get to you. Everything is here and it’s simple.
Questioning and contemplating is good but don’t step off the edge to where you start to deny yourself individuality in judgement and thought.
A child is not, as Nietzsche’s Zarathustra calls it, “a first motion”. The “innocence” of the child is in the forgetfulness of the fact that everything, or at least a lot, has been prepared for it. As Jim Morrison says, “We must tie all these desperate impressions together”. The parents are eager to provide the child with ways to do this, with pre-conceived connections, which have proven, for them, to “work” - but “to be workable” is something different altogether from “to be true”. Parents bundle impressions together, or sanction the child’s instinctive bundling-together of certain impressions, by saying: “that is a car”; “that is a plane”. As for the mentioned “instinct”: this “first nature” is actually an inherited second nature, a trait that has been naturally selected in the course of many (many, many) generations, because it “worked” - not because it reflected “the truth”. Certain traits are sanctioned by custom because they have experientially proven to “work”. Thus custom actually legislates natural selection, because those who do what is sanctioned by custom are rewarded with security and privileges - “freedom under the law” -, whereas those that experiment with it, who go “new, untrodden ways”, are “cast out” psychologically or even actually, losing their privileges or even their safety.
Even if I do not entertain any hope of success, I will still try to make you see why I consider your “truth” to be dogmatic.
“A word, once [i.e., in the past] mistaken for knowledge, is really a sound used as a sign for an experience, and it becomes a concept as soon as it is used for more than the one original experience. […] “A concept is an invention to which nothing corresponds entirely, but many things a little,” and so provides a “sign apparatus” for the mastery of great masses of facts. […] The primitive men who formed [language] believed in souls possessing free will as a faculty of capricious action. They projected this notion into things, and came to interpret their own sensations as the “actions” of other “agents,” later as the “qualities” of those “agents.” These superstitions became grammar - subject and predicate, active and passive, etc. Since that time, grammar has been a “folk metaphysic” dominating even the greatest philosophers. […]
Alleged “immediate certainties” […] are really just so many beliefs […]. For instance the Cartesian “I think, therefore I am” involves a number of bold assumptions - that I know what “thinking” and “existence” are, that thinking implies a thinker, that I am the thinker in this case, that the inference indicated by “therefore” is logically valid. Thus it involves judgment, interpretation, and therefore refers to something beyond the “immediate.” […]
Mathematics and logic have also been favorite sources of infallibility. Nietzsche regards mathematics as applied logic, and both as a “sign convention” or “theory of signs” which, in themselves, have no concern with reality at all. As applied to experience, they are animal contrivances of great utility for mastering the environment, but, far from revealing a structure of eternal Being, they positively falsify reality by using such fictitious entities as straight lines, points, and enduring self-identical things. There is no reason, therefore, to take our human logic as more than one of many possible kinds. So in any case neither logic nor mathematics can give certainty about the world.”
[George Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, pp. 248-253.]
I do not wish to imply that you believe in logic (mathematical or linguistic; from the Greek verb legein, meaning “to count” or “to speak”) to the extent described above. I do wish to give you an impression of the extent to which Nietzsche questions assumptions. In principle, every assumption is a questionable one for Nietzsche: hence his “fundamental certainty” which is expressed so well by Harry Neumann (below). As we have to make assumptions, however, in order to function, those ideas that “work” have a value for life (indeed, their value is determined by how well they “work”), but not a truth-value. Apart from the fundamental certainty that there is “something”, which is in a state of flux, there is no truth, but only probability. It is probable that similar, but different experiences from my own exist (i.e., “other people”). I always work with this hypothesis, otherwise how could I function? Your assertion that I exist is not exactly revolutionary for me.