Reality is an Absolute

Thank you for your arguments ProPro attempts to re-define the terms I have already defined, not using any dictionary, but his understanding of the terms. Not only is this an attempt to skew the argument in his favor, his definition is inherently flawed.Pro defines reality as 'Things, or the actuality of them'. By Pro's definition, only 'things' are part of reality. The state of such things isn't part of reality then. Meaning, the Earth being closer to the Sun than Neptune, isn't part of reality, as being closer is a state of location. Pro defines perception 'As being aware of things through senses.'. Being aware of things references a state, just as being ready, being dressed, being awake, etc... Perception is not a state, you wouldn't say 'I am perception', you would say 'I am perceptive'. Perceptive is the state associated with perception.I propose that my definitions were first, came from a dictionary, and are more proper. Pro's argument stems from these definitions, but these arguments are flawed as well. We don't perceive objects. We perceive the light bouncing off of them as sight. We perceive the kinetic energy of an object striking them, being turned into vibrations, as sound. We perceive the repelling force of atoms when our hands get close to objects as 'touch'. In no way do we actually perceive the objects directly.Instead, we perceive reality 100% through our senses and thought processes. As everything is being processed through our brains, we have no way to objectively step outside of that personal process to 'compare notes' with anyone else. Just as you can't step into my body to perceive reality from my point of view, I can't step into your body to perceive reality from your point of view.Pro states that reality is independent, and does not depend on anything. I assert that reality depends on our perception. If you remove all perception of reality, does it still exist, and how can you show that it does without perceiving it? Because we have no method to test anything without some form of perception, reality is entirely based on perception. Further, because all perception is processed subjectively and individually through our brains, we have no method of objectifying our perceptions into a perfect consensus.A man is hit on the head and this causes him to see the world as red. This is due to the perception of sight being directly related to electrical impulses between the eye and the brain. As Pro stated, this doesn't make the world red, it is just what the eye and brain are processing. Similarly, each individual has no way to know if his eye and brain are processing the world correctly either. Each individual has only his own experience of what is correct to judge by. By definition, then, reality is defined subjectively for each person.If there is an absolute, objective, external reality, we have no method to test it. Without a method to objectively and empirically test it, it remains in the same category as Gods, spirit, and invisible pink unicorns.In addition, this entire debate is completely subjective, based on definitions of words, which are defined with other words, ad infinitum. Using Pro's definition of and dictionary for Absolute we get the following:Absolute: Complete in itself. Complete: Finished.Finished: Polished to the highest degree of excellence; complete(first instance of circular synonyms)Polished: ... refined;Refined: polished, cultured(again, circular synonyms).All words are defined with other words. There are no 'base' words, so there are no 'absolute' words. If there are no absolute words, how can there be an absolute argument about reality? Even this debate isn't absolute, as it relies entirely upon circular logic of language to even exist. Pro attempts to require the axiom of 'Existence exists' for his argument, but the entire argument is concisely about whether or not existence exists in an absolute form.Take both of these arguments as an example. Everything said on both sides is perceived by you and fits into what you perceive as reality. I assert that reality is only a word we use to describe our view of what is and what isn't.