Re: Are you human?
01011001011011110111010100100111011100100110010100 100000011000
01011011000110110000100000011010100111010101110011 011101000010
00000111001101101000011011110111010101110100011010 010110111001
10011100100000011100100110000101101110011001000110 111101101101
00100000011101110110111101110010011001000111001100 101100001000
0001101101011000010110111000101110
Anyway, moving on.
Hume was an empirist, but while there are lots of funky things we can feel in the world (colors, shapes, feelings, stuff), he didn't believe we could ever see or feel ourselves which is the subject to these things. And thus we couldn't assume the um, ourselves (having bad time with words here) is constant and not changing, and thus we couldn't say the world was a constant. So he basically believes that anything we can see exists, and nothing else. Causality doesn't exist, because we can't see it. And we can't see laws of nature, so they don't exist either. Can you see where this leads?
He basically happened to kill whole empirism thing with his tough questions (though Kant managed to explain some of them, at least) and extreme view to the subject. So, hence we can't ever be sure that slainvet indeed is a human and not a bot, because we can't see the actual reasoning; we just see the text that could mean anything.
P.S: Philosophy is fun. Time to study more of it.